Saturday, January 14, 2006
Law Enforcement May Pick Up the Slack of Responsibility for Stun Gun Safety
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
Favorable Developments in the Less-Lethal Weapons Market Cap off a Year Otherwise Rife with Difficult Challenges for Stun Gun Technology
Developments late in 2005 provided a notable counterpoint to the year's bad news. They helped to rehabilitate the leading maker’s image and will probably prove critical to the industry’s survival. At the same time, I encourage the competition that continues to challenge the market leader.
Last year cast stun gun technology in an unfavorable light. Much criticism and litigation has been a reaction to the conduct of one manufacturer that many consider irresponsible. This has been detrimental to the future of all stun gun technology, not just the largest maker’s.
The latest, good news about the largest maker bodes well for the entire industry, but it’s never good for an entire industry’s future to be beholden to one company’s reputation.
On Dec. 21, MSNBC.com reported that court in Texas had dropped a wrongful death suit against Taser International Inc. According to the article, this suit was the eighth of its kind to be dropped this year, which began with Taser’s weapon in a major Hollywood movie before the stock embarked on a rollercoaster ride and questionable deaths began to concern critics and monopolize news about stun gun technology.
In Novermber, reports suggested that NASDAQ was to consider a delisting of the stun gun maker after delays in receiving a quarterly report. But a Dec. 23 article from The Motley Fool indicated that the situation had been resolved. The same article also reported that Arizona’s Attorney General’s office had concluded an inquiry into the company.
It was a dramatic one-two punch of good luck for a company that has been against the ropes for a while. We’ll see if the firm’s good fortune lasts. Last year ended on a high note for less-lethal technology, too, and the past week’s news could simply be a peak on the rollercoaster ride we’ve seen all this year. It remains to be seen whether we’re witnessing a turning point, once and for all, for the largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The year also saw competitors such as Stinger Systems, Inc. and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA) grabbing some spotlight. Right in the largest manufacturer’s own backyard, Stinger, a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County. And earlier in the year, LEA’s own president deliberately subjected himself to a shock from his company’s stun gun to prove the safety of the manufacturer’s weapon.
A Stinger press release in late 2005 announced the appointment of a new chief financial officer at the firm. Triangle Business Journal reported on Dec. 23 that Youngsville, NC–based LEA is currently courting a potential stun gun partner.
We still have one major player in the stun gun market, and with that company’s well-publicized vindication this past week, we have a stun gun market that still has a future. But more competition—which critics seemingly discourage and marginalize sarcastically—will help this market’s investors avoid sitting on the edges of their seats every time bad things happen to the industry’s 800-pound gorilla.
Developments late in 2005 provided a notable counterpoint to the year's bad news. They helped to rehabilitate the leading maker’s image and will probably prove critical to the industry’s survival. At the same time, I encourage the competition that continues to challenge the market leader.
Last year cast stun gun technology in an unfavorable light. Much criticism and litigation has been a reaction to the conduct of one manufacturer that many consider irresponsible. This has been detrimental to the future of all stun gun technology, not just the largest maker’s.
The latest, good news about the largest maker bodes well for the entire industry, but it’s never good for an entire industry’s future to be beholden to one company’s reputation.
On Dec. 21, MSNBC.com reported that court in Texas had dropped a wrongful death suit against Taser International Inc. According to the article, this suit was the eighth of its kind to be dropped this year, which began with Taser’s weapon in a major Hollywood movie before the stock embarked on a rollercoaster ride and questionable deaths began to concern critics and monopolize news about stun gun technology.
In Novermber, reports suggested that NASDAQ was to consider a delisting of the stun gun maker after delays in receiving a quarterly report. But a Dec. 23 article from The Motley Fool indicated that the situation had been resolved. The same article also reported that Arizona’s Attorney General’s office had concluded an inquiry into the company.
It was a dramatic one-two punch of good luck for a company that has been against the ropes for a while. We’ll see if the firm’s good fortune lasts. Last year ended on a high note for less-lethal technology, too, and the past week’s news could simply be a peak on the rollercoaster ride we’ve seen all this year. It remains to be seen whether we’re witnessing a turning point, once and for all, for the largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The year also saw competitors such as Stinger Systems, Inc. and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA) grabbing some spotlight. Right in the largest manufacturer’s own backyard, Stinger, a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County. And earlier in the year, LEA’s own president deliberately subjected himself to a shock from his company’s stun gun to prove the safety of the manufacturer’s weapon.
A Stinger press release in late 2005 announced the appointment of a new chief financial officer at the firm. Triangle Business Journal reported on Dec. 23 that Youngsville, NC–based LEA is currently courting a potential stun gun partner.
We still have one major player in the stun gun market, and with that company’s well-publicized vindication this past week, we have a stun gun market that still has a future. But more competition—which critics seemingly discourage and marginalize sarcastically—will help this market’s investors avoid sitting on the edges of their seats every time bad things happen to the industry’s 800-pound gorilla.
Opportunity for Rehabilitation of Less-Lethal Technology’s Reputation Exists Even as Problems Mount for the Industry
Reports in early December of last year said a rival less-lethal weapon maker was in talks to become the stun gun manufacturer of choice for Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This is right in the industry's largest manufacturer's backyard. Reports about a possible stock delisting for Taser International Inc. cast the development in an interesting light.
The Arizona Republic and reported that Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, reportedly began to test stun guns from another manufacturer, Stinger Systems Inc., a company that touts safety as one of its product’s defining features. Writers at Web sites such as The Motley Fool weighed in on the situation.
Also according to wire service reports that ran on “ABC News,” CNN, the New York Post, and elsewhere, Taser International Inc. had received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market. Articles claimed that the stun gun manufacturer’s stock may have been subject to delisting because of the company’s delays in filing a quarterly report; and that the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based company planned to attend a hearing on the issue. Since, the company's stock listing has been relisted.
You have to wonder how often this sort of thing happens as a matter of course. Were the publicized plans to appeal merely savvy public relations in response to bad news, or was the company really in a bind? The question is critical, and the answer would reveal a lot about the the stun gun industry's circumstances.
A number of industry pundits have questioned whether other stun gun manufacturers have the clout on other stock markets to truly compete. If the NASDAQ delisting comes to pass, many people may end up going back to the drawing board.
Many of the same wire stories that reported the possible NASDAQ delisting also repeated an oft-cited Amnesty International statement that 129 deaths are related to stun guns. Human rights groups such as Amnesty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all either issued statements or taken action in response to safety concerns over stun gun use.
On Nov. 28, The Miami Herald reported that a 35-year-old woman in Fort Myers, Fla., died shortly after showing no visible effects from the direct shot of a stun gun. The same day, CourtTV reported that a former Maricopa County deputy, Samuel Powers, has filed a liability case against Taser International. He alleges that a shock from the company’s weapon in July of 2002 ended his 15-year career there.
Circumstances in the stun gun industry right now are ripe for a major market shake-up. The market really needs a stirring—and a positive one. More competition will keep this market honest, and well-publicized honesty is the only thing that will regain the public’s and investors’ trust when it comes to less-lethal technology. That public trust has been severely damaged by many months’ worth of concerns over safety and profitability.
Reports in early December of last year said a rival less-lethal weapon maker was in talks to become the stun gun manufacturer of choice for Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This is right in the industry's largest manufacturer's backyard. Reports about a possible stock delisting for Taser International Inc. cast the development in an interesting light.
The Arizona Republic and reported that Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, reportedly began to test stun guns from another manufacturer, Stinger Systems Inc., a company that touts safety as one of its product’s defining features. Writers at Web sites such as The Motley Fool weighed in on the situation.
Also according to wire service reports that ran on “ABC News,” CNN, the New York Post, and elsewhere, Taser International Inc. had received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market. Articles claimed that the stun gun manufacturer’s stock may have been subject to delisting because of the company’s delays in filing a quarterly report; and that the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based company planned to attend a hearing on the issue. Since, the company's stock listing has been relisted.
You have to wonder how often this sort of thing happens as a matter of course. Were the publicized plans to appeal merely savvy public relations in response to bad news, or was the company really in a bind? The question is critical, and the answer would reveal a lot about the the stun gun industry's circumstances.
A number of industry pundits have questioned whether other stun gun manufacturers have the clout on other stock markets to truly compete. If the NASDAQ delisting comes to pass, many people may end up going back to the drawing board.
Many of the same wire stories that reported the possible NASDAQ delisting also repeated an oft-cited Amnesty International statement that 129 deaths are related to stun guns. Human rights groups such as Amnesty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all either issued statements or taken action in response to safety concerns over stun gun use.
On Nov. 28, The Miami Herald reported that a 35-year-old woman in Fort Myers, Fla., died shortly after showing no visible effects from the direct shot of a stun gun. The same day, CourtTV reported that a former Maricopa County deputy, Samuel Powers, has filed a liability case against Taser International. He alleges that a shock from the company’s weapon in July of 2002 ended his 15-year career there.
Circumstances in the stun gun industry right now are ripe for a major market shake-up. The market really needs a stirring—and a positive one. More competition will keep this market honest, and well-publicized honesty is the only thing that will regain the public’s and investors’ trust when it comes to less-lethal technology. That public trust has been severely damaged by many months’ worth of concerns over safety and profitability.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Industry Leaders Can Rehabilitate Less-Lethal Technology’s Image by Offering and Aggressively Promoting Safer Stun Guns
Bad press and the attention of human rights groups threaten future buyers’ confidence in stun gun technology and may have precipitated a recent plunge in industry profits. I urge leaders of this market to reign in what seems like inscrutable investor activities and take major steps to rehabilitate stun guns’ image while the window for positive impact remains open.
The bad rap on stun guns is partially deserved. More important, the perception is the reality. Major companies in this market space have acted in ways that many see as inconsiderate, irresponsible, and legally questionable. Whether these people are correct in their assessments becomes a minor point once a perception sets in.
Reuters reported on Oct. 26 that a major stun gun manufacturer had experienced a 95 percent dip in profit during the third quarter. Just two days earlier, MarketWatch and others reported that this same manufacturer’s stocks rose on news of the company’s latest offering, a camera to record users’ activities on its existing weapon. This safety-minded feature received renewed coverage almost two weeks later via an Associated Press story.
On Nov. 6, The Indianapolis Star ran an article adding context to law enforcement cutbacks on orders of stun guns. Meanwhile, Stinger Systems of Florida introduced to the market a stun gun to rival the established leader’s weapon.
To salvage sales, this industry must issue sweeping messages. Someone needs to take concerted actions that are grand and reassuring in scope. And the media need to cover what’s said whether the message comes from new or established players.
Stock prices and profits have been all over the place. Shareholders and other business stakeholders in the stun gun market space are flying by the seats of their pants and jockeying for the big score. Add new players to the fray, and developments will either mellow or become more frenetic.
Human rights organizations are beginning to claim victories in their efforts to enforce safe stun gun use. An Oct. 26 Amnesty International press release noted that a recent court case looking at stun guns, Indiana’s Monroe County Jail, and the death of James Borden coincided with the largest manufacturer’s decision to change its warning labels and the growing movement in law enforcement to curtail use of the weapons.
Pointing to the questionable safety of current stun gun offerings, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have fanned the flames of the stun gun debate. An embattled industry has responded with carefully orchestrated media blitzes touting new features to create the perception that manufacturers are devoted to safety.
With sales suffering such a large hit as of late, the success of efforts, thus far, to quell law enforcement’s and the public’s concerns remains unclear. But one this is certain: The maelstrom leaves casual observers blindsided.
Bad press and the attention of human rights groups threaten future buyers’ confidence in stun gun technology and may have precipitated a recent plunge in industry profits. I urge leaders of this market to reign in what seems like inscrutable investor activities and take major steps to rehabilitate stun guns’ image while the window for positive impact remains open.
The bad rap on stun guns is partially deserved. More important, the perception is the reality. Major companies in this market space have acted in ways that many see as inconsiderate, irresponsible, and legally questionable. Whether these people are correct in their assessments becomes a minor point once a perception sets in.
Reuters reported on Oct. 26 that a major stun gun manufacturer had experienced a 95 percent dip in profit during the third quarter. Just two days earlier, MarketWatch and others reported that this same manufacturer’s stocks rose on news of the company’s latest offering, a camera to record users’ activities on its existing weapon. This safety-minded feature received renewed coverage almost two weeks later via an Associated Press story.
On Nov. 6, The Indianapolis Star ran an article adding context to law enforcement cutbacks on orders of stun guns. Meanwhile, Stinger Systems of Florida introduced to the market a stun gun to rival the established leader’s weapon.
To salvage sales, this industry must issue sweeping messages. Someone needs to take concerted actions that are grand and reassuring in scope. And the media need to cover what’s said whether the message comes from new or established players.
Stock prices and profits have been all over the place. Shareholders and other business stakeholders in the stun gun market space are flying by the seats of their pants and jockeying for the big score. Add new players to the fray, and developments will either mellow or become more frenetic.
Human rights organizations are beginning to claim victories in their efforts to enforce safe stun gun use. An Oct. 26 Amnesty International press release noted that a recent court case looking at stun guns, Indiana’s Monroe County Jail, and the death of James Borden coincided with the largest manufacturer’s decision to change its warning labels and the growing movement in law enforcement to curtail use of the weapons.
Pointing to the questionable safety of current stun gun offerings, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have fanned the flames of the stun gun debate. An embattled industry has responded with carefully orchestrated media blitzes touting new features to create the perception that manufacturers are devoted to safety.
With sales suffering such a large hit as of late, the success of efforts, thus far, to quell law enforcement’s and the public’s concerns remains unclear. But one this is certain: The maelstrom leaves casual observers blindsided.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Self-imposed recommendations for police use of stun guns are not the same as industry leadership and assistance
After a well-known advocacy group added its weight to the stun gun debate in October, officials met before the month was out and drafted stun gun use recommendations. But recommendations fall short of what those who use these weapons need: new safety regulations with teeth and leadership from stun gun manufacturers.
In the beginning, use of electroshock technology in the form of stun guns was a response to a market that wanted reliable, less-lethal weapons. Since then, the stun gun industry’s zeal to continue making a profit has led many to question whether safety—the whole reason for less-lethal technology—remains as the industry’s primary goal. Count me among those with questions.
On Oct. 7, The Associated Press and others ran articles on an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report. The ACLU expressed concern about the safety hazards unregulated stun gun use may pose. Of the law enforcement agencies that the ACLU surveyed, only four were found to regulate the number of times an officer is allowed to use a stun gun on a suspect during one incident.
Less-lethal technology is not the same as non-lethal technology. We can always expect a handful of people to die from stun guns, and anyone who calls for perfection is grandstanding. But organizations make a good point when they call for official rules to govern these weapons’ use and decrease deaths to a bare minimum. Any technology with ‘lethal’ in its name, no matter how characterized, demands the attention of regulators.
According to reports, Department of Justice officials and more than four dozen police agencies attended a conference of the Police Executive Research Forum last week and discussed stun gun policy. An Associated Press article later reported that, on Oct. 19, the attendees announced 50 recommendations for proper use of stun guns from the industry’s largest manufacturer.
Stun gun safety deserves more than lip service from manufacturers. But lip service is all we seem to hear from some of the major producers. This is why law enforcement organizations end up making grand overtures, like last week’s, to protect the reputation of police departments—but they shouldn’t have to. The industry should take the lead.
Some stun gun manufacturers essentially use peer-pressure. They promise safety. Police departments see peers using the weapons and, at least partially in the interest of appearing responsible, buy and use the weapons themselves. But we rarely hear a peep from these companies when questionable incidents then occur. Producers of these weapons seem to leave police departments holding the bag.
This industry needs to deliver on safety, not just on orders for stun guns. If they don’t, legislators facing mounting public and media pressure will eventually draft regulations of their own. Nobody wants that.
After a well-known advocacy group added its weight to the stun gun debate in October, officials met before the month was out and drafted stun gun use recommendations. But recommendations fall short of what those who use these weapons need: new safety regulations with teeth and leadership from stun gun manufacturers.
In the beginning, use of electroshock technology in the form of stun guns was a response to a market that wanted reliable, less-lethal weapons. Since then, the stun gun industry’s zeal to continue making a profit has led many to question whether safety—the whole reason for less-lethal technology—remains as the industry’s primary goal. Count me among those with questions.
On Oct. 7, The Associated Press and others ran articles on an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report. The ACLU expressed concern about the safety hazards unregulated stun gun use may pose. Of the law enforcement agencies that the ACLU surveyed, only four were found to regulate the number of times an officer is allowed to use a stun gun on a suspect during one incident.
Less-lethal technology is not the same as non-lethal technology. We can always expect a handful of people to die from stun guns, and anyone who calls for perfection is grandstanding. But organizations make a good point when they call for official rules to govern these weapons’ use and decrease deaths to a bare minimum. Any technology with ‘lethal’ in its name, no matter how characterized, demands the attention of regulators.
According to reports, Department of Justice officials and more than four dozen police agencies attended a conference of the Police Executive Research Forum last week and discussed stun gun policy. An Associated Press article later reported that, on Oct. 19, the attendees announced 50 recommendations for proper use of stun guns from the industry’s largest manufacturer.
Stun gun safety deserves more than lip service from manufacturers. But lip service is all we seem to hear from some of the major producers. This is why law enforcement organizations end up making grand overtures, like last week’s, to protect the reputation of police departments—but they shouldn’t have to. The industry should take the lead.
Some stun gun manufacturers essentially use peer-pressure. They promise safety. Police departments see peers using the weapons and, at least partially in the interest of appearing responsible, buy and use the weapons themselves. But we rarely hear a peep from these companies when questionable incidents then occur. Producers of these weapons seem to leave police departments holding the bag.
This industry needs to deliver on safety, not just on orders for stun guns. If they don’t, legislators facing mounting public and media pressure will eventually draft regulations of their own. Nobody wants that.
More competition in the stun gun marketplace may improve the accuracy of debate over these weapons’ safety
As one stun gun company weathers questions about possible connections to accidental deaths, a rising player has announced production of a rival weapon that features safety-minded technology. Any stun gun company that can gain the public’s trust will eventually rule this market space, and more competition may improve the accuracy of debate over stun guns’ safety.
Use of stun guns in place of firearms can save lives. But proper engineering and training are keys to the promise of safety, the very market force that precipitated the invention of this technology in the first place. When it comes to the issue of safety, some stun gun companies seem to be doing a better job than are others.
On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based company, announced volume production of its own stun gun. As quoted in Stinger’s press release, Robert Gruder, CEO, claimed his company’s weapon “allows an officer to maintain control during the entire arrest process by having a manual trigger,” a feature that apparently sets Stinger’s weapon apart from other stun gun manufacturers’ products. Also according to Stinger’s release, “a nationwide network of trainers is already in place.”
I think a well-designed weapon wins only half the battle. A robust, safety-minded training program for officials who use stun guns is the missing link. It remains to be seen how Stinger’s network of trainers will fare in imparting the respect that use of these weapons demands. Stun guns are ‘less-lethal’ weapons, not ‘non-lethal.’ The risk of death is always present, albeit greatly minimized in comparison to a firearm’s.
Highly publicized events this past year have thrown the safety of a leading manufacturer’s stun guns into question. A number of states bar the weapons: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
On Oct. 11, The Associated Press ran widely reported news that the online auctioneer eBay Inc. “will block the sale and shipment of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents.” According to the news, out-of-state “eBay sellers are believed to have sold” a number of TASER products to New York State–based buyers. The New York attorney general led an investigation last year.
Recently, a television news broadcast reported that police in Nashville, Tenn., had used a stun gun to subdue a man trying to slit his own wrists. TASER International, Inc. issued a news release about the Nashville event on Oct. 13.
It is telling when a large, established corporation that enjoys daily media coverage across the country resorts to publicizing reported news about the kind of technology it manufactures. Presumably, the hope may be to promote further coverage of a positive event to offset a barrage of negative news coverage about the company’s products. But the obvious question is why would any well-known company do this? To some, the move can look like desperation.
It’s understandable why human rights organization such as Amnesty International would question the use of stun guns. At every turn, some companies in this market space seem to argue against further safety precautions for these weapons.
Large forces seem to be at play.
News reports fuel the perception that stun gun safety is a polarizing issue. Many stories seem to portray two diametrically opposed camps: those that endorse unbridled stun gun use and those that would call for complete abandonment of the technology. The reality is more complex. Dissolution of a monopoly in the industry might change dynamics considerably.
As one stun gun company weathers questions about possible connections to accidental deaths, a rising player has announced production of a rival weapon that features safety-minded technology. Any stun gun company that can gain the public’s trust will eventually rule this market space, and more competition may improve the accuracy of debate over stun guns’ safety.
Use of stun guns in place of firearms can save lives. But proper engineering and training are keys to the promise of safety, the very market force that precipitated the invention of this technology in the first place. When it comes to the issue of safety, some stun gun companies seem to be doing a better job than are others.
On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based company, announced volume production of its own stun gun. As quoted in Stinger’s press release, Robert Gruder, CEO, claimed his company’s weapon “allows an officer to maintain control during the entire arrest process by having a manual trigger,” a feature that apparently sets Stinger’s weapon apart from other stun gun manufacturers’ products. Also according to Stinger’s release, “a nationwide network of trainers is already in place.”
I think a well-designed weapon wins only half the battle. A robust, safety-minded training program for officials who use stun guns is the missing link. It remains to be seen how Stinger’s network of trainers will fare in imparting the respect that use of these weapons demands. Stun guns are ‘less-lethal’ weapons, not ‘non-lethal.’ The risk of death is always present, albeit greatly minimized in comparison to a firearm’s.
Highly publicized events this past year have thrown the safety of a leading manufacturer’s stun guns into question. A number of states bar the weapons: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
On Oct. 11, The Associated Press ran widely reported news that the online auctioneer eBay Inc. “will block the sale and shipment of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents.” According to the news, out-of-state “eBay sellers are believed to have sold” a number of TASER products to New York State–based buyers. The New York attorney general led an investigation last year.
Recently, a television news broadcast reported that police in Nashville, Tenn., had used a stun gun to subdue a man trying to slit his own wrists. TASER International, Inc. issued a news release about the Nashville event on Oct. 13.
It is telling when a large, established corporation that enjoys daily media coverage across the country resorts to publicizing reported news about the kind of technology it manufactures. Presumably, the hope may be to promote further coverage of a positive event to offset a barrage of negative news coverage about the company’s products. But the obvious question is why would any well-known company do this? To some, the move can look like desperation.
It’s understandable why human rights organization such as Amnesty International would question the use of stun guns. At every turn, some companies in this market space seem to argue against further safety precautions for these weapons.
Large forces seem to be at play.
News reports fuel the perception that stun gun safety is a polarizing issue. Many stories seem to portray two diametrically opposed camps: those that endorse unbridled stun gun use and those that would call for complete abandonment of the technology. The reality is more complex. Dissolution of a monopoly in the industry might change dynamics considerably.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The stun gun market needs accountability and competition
Less-lethal technology needs to be a part of law enforcement’s future. But the high-profile attention certain stun gun manufacturers attract through what some see as questionable business practices unfairly threatens the further adoption of all less-lethal technology.
A broadening government investigation threatens a major stun gun manufacturer, whose weapons’ safety is attracting increasing debate among law enforcement officials and the general public. Other manufacturers should embrace the stun gun market’s current state of flux as an opportunity to increase their market shares before the window of opportunity closes. Companies such as Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. have received attention for their stun gun–related products this past year.
On Sept. 28, BusinessWeek reported that a current Securities & Exchange Commission investigation into TASER International, Inc. has become formal and widened. According to the article, SEC authorities are looking into “possible stock manipulation by outside parties.” The story also touches on a dip in law enforcement agencies’ orders.
By continuing along its current path, the stun gun industry may inflict irreversible damage upon itself and severely handicap any manufacturer’s credibility in the marketplace. To wrest control of this recently robust market, others in the stun gun industry who face fewer problems and manufacturer possibly safer stun guns must launch aggressive campaigns in short order.
Recent stories in the Charlotte Observer and The Arizona Republic report on coroner and medical examiner findings that have tied electroshock from a large manufacturer’s stun guns to the deaths of at least two people.
The controversy surrounding one large company is becoming the unofficial face of the entire stun gun industry, and this is a shame. Stun gun technology, done right, can be safe. The rest of the industry needs to communicate, on a massive scale, their commitment to responsible stun gun technology.
According to the Arizona attorney general, as quoted in a Sept. 28 article in The Arizona Republic, TASER International, Inc. is making changes to its marketing practices.
Any effort to be safer with stun guns is welcome, but it may be a case of "too little, too late" for some. It’s no wonder human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and others have been so critical of the stun gun industry.
Less-lethal technology needs to be a part of law enforcement’s future. But the high-profile attention certain stun gun manufacturers attract through what some see as questionable business practices unfairly threatens the further adoption of all less-lethal technology.
A broadening government investigation threatens a major stun gun manufacturer, whose weapons’ safety is attracting increasing debate among law enforcement officials and the general public. Other manufacturers should embrace the stun gun market’s current state of flux as an opportunity to increase their market shares before the window of opportunity closes. Companies such as Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. have received attention for their stun gun–related products this past year.
On Sept. 28, BusinessWeek reported that a current Securities & Exchange Commission investigation into TASER International, Inc. has become formal and widened. According to the article, SEC authorities are looking into “possible stock manipulation by outside parties.” The story also touches on a dip in law enforcement agencies’ orders.
By continuing along its current path, the stun gun industry may inflict irreversible damage upon itself and severely handicap any manufacturer’s credibility in the marketplace. To wrest control of this recently robust market, others in the stun gun industry who face fewer problems and manufacturer possibly safer stun guns must launch aggressive campaigns in short order.
Recent stories in the Charlotte Observer and The Arizona Republic report on coroner and medical examiner findings that have tied electroshock from a large manufacturer’s stun guns to the deaths of at least two people.
The controversy surrounding one large company is becoming the unofficial face of the entire stun gun industry, and this is a shame. Stun gun technology, done right, can be safe. The rest of the industry needs to communicate, on a massive scale, their commitment to responsible stun gun technology.
According to the Arizona attorney general, as quoted in a Sept. 28 article in The Arizona Republic, TASER International, Inc. is making changes to its marketing practices.
Any effort to be safer with stun guns is welcome, but it may be a case of "too little, too late" for some. It’s no wonder human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and others have been so critical of the stun gun industry.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Update
My last post, titled "Misuse of Stun Guns Continues and Throws Their Safety into Question," contained an error regarding the operation of a product by one of the manufacturers mentioned. According to a TASER International, Inc. spokesperson who contacted StunGun.com:
“When the TASER™ electronic control device is fired, it can be turned off at any time, even during the automatic five-second cycle, by turning the safety to the ‘off’ position. The purpose of the automatic timing is to preclude inadvertent early shut off, but the operator has full control and can turn the device off at any time.”
I welcome the notification. Even so, uninterrupted five-second (or even longer) stun durations have led to a considerable debate on safety. Reports, proven or unproven, of injury and even death have followed stuns of long, continuous durations or of excessive repetition. Manufacturers’ attention to safety in this regard is paramount.
Well-known human rights groups and others continue in their relentless demands for further testing of less-lethal technology. Their calls remain for explanations of product features and of manufacturers’ attention to safety.
My last post, titled "Misuse of Stun Guns Continues and Throws Their Safety into Question," contained an error regarding the operation of a product by one of the manufacturers mentioned. According to a TASER International, Inc. spokesperson who contacted StunGun.com:
“When the TASER™ electronic control device is fired, it can be turned off at any time, even during the automatic five-second cycle, by turning the safety to the ‘off’ position. The purpose of the automatic timing is to preclude inadvertent early shut off, but the operator has full control and can turn the device off at any time.”
I welcome the notification. Even so, uninterrupted five-second (or even longer) stun durations have led to a considerable debate on safety. Reports, proven or unproven, of injury and even death have followed stuns of long, continuous durations or of excessive repetition. Manufacturers’ attention to safety in this regard is paramount.
Well-known human rights groups and others continue in their relentless demands for further testing of less-lethal technology. Their calls remain for explanations of product features and of manufacturers’ attention to safety.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Misuse of stun guns continues and throws their safety into question
News reports and litigious developments have called into question the safety of a major stun gun manufacturer’s product, and human rights groups continue to ask tough questions. Less-lethal technology is good, and we should all strive to employ it in place of firearms whenever possible. We also need to make sure the less-lethal weapons live up to their name. Safer alternatives from other companies may exist, and their use along with stricter guidelines for law enforcement’s use of the weapons may go a long way to dispel fears.
Public statements from Amnesty International seem to support the idea of less-lethal weapon technology as a sensible alternative to lethal force. The well-known human rights organization has also repeatedly called for better usage guidelines and pointed, specifically, to the dubious safety of Taser International’s stun gun.
Other stun gun manufacturers claim that key design feature differences make their weapons safer than Taser’s. For example, police who fire a Taser must wait through a timed five-second cycle before they can shut off the stun. Stinger Systems, a rival manufacturer, markets a stun gun with a manual trigger. According to the company’s CEO, Robert Gruder, this gives police an important level of control over their use of the weapon, allowing them to stop the “stun” before the electrical shock might otherwise kill someone.
On Sept. 8, The Associated Press reported on a rift between Taser and a human rights group whose leader has referred to the Taser as a “murder weapon.” The Southern Christian Leadership Conference plans a march in November to protest last year’s incident involving Frederick Williams, a man who received repeated shocks from a Taser shortly before dying. Critics point out that Taser continues to rely on safety experiments that test the company’s weapon solely on perfectly healthy subjects.
Litigation looms as well for Arizona-based Taser. A Sept. 13 Associated Press story reported that Lee Games, a senior citizen from Gresham, Ore., who suffers from hypertension, is suing the manufacturer over safety and the city over excessive use of force. On Sept. 18, The Herald reported that a lawyer well known in South Carolina has come to the aid of a 76-year-old woman, Margaret Kimbrell, who police shot with a stun gun last year during an incident at the assisted living complex where she lives.
When the stun gun industry provides technology of questionable safety and law enforcement makes up the rules as they go, we swing the door wide-open for litigation and controversy. In a way, the stun gun industry and law enforcement are getting exactly what they deserve with the latest headaches. As sales continue, opposition will grow steadily louder until someone with authority responds in a way that acknowledges critics’ legitimate concerns.
The prospect of reconciliation for all sides in the stun gun debate exists. The industry must take the lead. A humble, coordinated effort to reach out to and embrace all constituencies could lead to the accord everyone is looking for.
News reports and litigious developments have called into question the safety of a major stun gun manufacturer’s product, and human rights groups continue to ask tough questions. Less-lethal technology is good, and we should all strive to employ it in place of firearms whenever possible. We also need to make sure the less-lethal weapons live up to their name. Safer alternatives from other companies may exist, and their use along with stricter guidelines for law enforcement’s use of the weapons may go a long way to dispel fears.
Public statements from Amnesty International seem to support the idea of less-lethal weapon technology as a sensible alternative to lethal force. The well-known human rights organization has also repeatedly called for better usage guidelines and pointed, specifically, to the dubious safety of Taser International’s stun gun.
Other stun gun manufacturers claim that key design feature differences make their weapons safer than Taser’s. For example, police who fire a Taser must wait through a timed five-second cycle before they can shut off the stun. Stinger Systems, a rival manufacturer, markets a stun gun with a manual trigger. According to the company’s CEO, Robert Gruder, this gives police an important level of control over their use of the weapon, allowing them to stop the “stun” before the electrical shock might otherwise kill someone.
On Sept. 8, The Associated Press reported on a rift between Taser and a human rights group whose leader has referred to the Taser as a “murder weapon.” The Southern Christian Leadership Conference plans a march in November to protest last year’s incident involving Frederick Williams, a man who received repeated shocks from a Taser shortly before dying. Critics point out that Taser continues to rely on safety experiments that test the company’s weapon solely on perfectly healthy subjects.
Litigation looms as well for Arizona-based Taser. A Sept. 13 Associated Press story reported that Lee Games, a senior citizen from Gresham, Ore., who suffers from hypertension, is suing the manufacturer over safety and the city over excessive use of force. On Sept. 18, The Herald reported that a lawyer well known in South Carolina has come to the aid of a 76-year-old woman, Margaret Kimbrell, who police shot with a stun gun last year during an incident at the assisted living complex where she lives.
When the stun gun industry provides technology of questionable safety and law enforcement makes up the rules as they go, we swing the door wide-open for litigation and controversy. In a way, the stun gun industry and law enforcement are getting exactly what they deserve with the latest headaches. As sales continue, opposition will grow steadily louder until someone with authority responds in a way that acknowledges critics’ legitimate concerns.
The prospect of reconciliation for all sides in the stun gun debate exists. The industry must take the lead. A humble, coordinated effort to reach out to and embrace all constituencies could lead to the accord everyone is looking for.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Law enforcement's attitude may drive development of safer stun gun technology and usage guidelines
Underreported developments in the industry suggest that a demand is brewing for safer stun guns. This is the natural evolution of a market that owes itself to the quest for a weapon less lethal than a firearm.
It’s already happening. The stun gun’s target markets are reaching out for a weapon that they perceive lives up to the ‘less-lethal’ label. But entrenched stockholder interest may mean we won’t see these developments in the news for a while.
A press release in late August announced the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) Tactical Network’s anticipated approval of Tampa, Fla.–based Stinger Systems, Inc.’s stun gun. The release quoted members of CERT comparing Stinger’s weapon favorably to the Taser, the market-leading weapon by Tucson, Ariz.–based Taser International.
Endorsement by CERT of Stinger’s weapon is significant. The organization’s obvious interest in responsible guidelines for the use of stun guns that are apparently safer than the market leader’s is heartening. It suggests that the law enforcement community’s response to the promise of stun guns will follow advice I have been advocating for quite some time: responsible use of the weapons.
While CERT, a law enforcement–minded organization, has endorsed a stun gun by one of Taser’s rivals, reports indicated that police officers from five states are in the process of suing Taser for injuries. According to The Associated Press, the lawsuits allege that Taser encouraged “officers to get shocked during training” and hide “information on injuries to about a dozen other injured officers."
Stun gun manufacturers must be careful. The market is ready for a ‘less-lethal’ weapon that lives up to the notion, but the potential for backlash is palpable. To get anywhere in this market, a stun gun company must ride the wave of safety. Stonewalling, strong-arming, smoke, and mirrors will all backfire.
Underreported developments in the industry suggest that a demand is brewing for safer stun guns. This is the natural evolution of a market that owes itself to the quest for a weapon less lethal than a firearm.
It’s already happening. The stun gun’s target markets are reaching out for a weapon that they perceive lives up to the ‘less-lethal’ label. But entrenched stockholder interest may mean we won’t see these developments in the news for a while.
A press release in late August announced the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) Tactical Network’s anticipated approval of Tampa, Fla.–based Stinger Systems, Inc.’s stun gun. The release quoted members of CERT comparing Stinger’s weapon favorably to the Taser, the market-leading weapon by Tucson, Ariz.–based Taser International.
Endorsement by CERT of Stinger’s weapon is significant. The organization’s obvious interest in responsible guidelines for the use of stun guns that are apparently safer than the market leader’s is heartening. It suggests that the law enforcement community’s response to the promise of stun guns will follow advice I have been advocating for quite some time: responsible use of the weapons.
While CERT, a law enforcement–minded organization, has endorsed a stun gun by one of Taser’s rivals, reports indicated that police officers from five states are in the process of suing Taser for injuries. According to The Associated Press, the lawsuits allege that Taser encouraged “officers to get shocked during training” and hide “information on injuries to about a dozen other injured officers."
Stun gun manufacturers must be careful. The market is ready for a ‘less-lethal’ weapon that lives up to the notion, but the potential for backlash is palpable. To get anywhere in this market, a stun gun company must ride the wave of safety. Stonewalling, strong-arming, smoke, and mirrors will all backfire.
