Don't Taze Me, Bro!

HomelandSecurityNewswire is parroting lurid headlines again...

Tasers are once again in the news.

Today the HomelandSecurityNewswire essentially reprinted a Michigan State University press release in an article titled "Stun guns increase chances of citizen injury, but protect police officers."

Haven’t seen the Justice Quarterly articles referred to by the HSN but I’ve done a quick scan of Bill Terrill's original study, "Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes." The paper is a detailed analysis of use of force continuum policies, their application, and outcomes at eight different public law enforcement agencies.  The use of Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs), which includes but is not limited to Tasers, is only one of many elements evaluated in the 287 page report. In the press release and the article Terrill is quoted as saying: 

“There has been this increased perception that these devices are effective and safe.  But in terms of safeness, our data conclusively shows they are not safe to citizens. Now, are there concerns to the point that we’re recommending that law enforcement agencies not use them? Absolutely not. We think there needs to be more careful analysis done, and it has to be done in a way that’s fair and objective.” 

This conclusion does not leap from the pages of the full report.  In fact, such pronouncements serve to attract attention to some potential shortcomings in the study.

1) The report tracks injuries reported after a use of force incident without determining whether or not the injuries were the result of the subject's behavior that prompted the decision to apply force or if the injury was the result of the application of force by law enforcement.

2) The report analyzes the rate of reported injuries extracted from use of force reports, citizen complaints, and litigation.  With the exception of the self-descriptive category "broken bones" the study does not describe the severity of injuries in categories “bruise,” “abrasion,” or “laceration.”

3) Reported injuries resulting from use of force incidents involving Taser use include the abrasions (scrapes and skin marks) or lacerations (cuts to the skin) caused by the Taser barbs.

As Terrill picks sides in the TASER debate it appears he regards the word “safe” as synonymous with the term “injury-free”?  If so, that seems a little short-sighted.  Maybe I’ll ask him.[*]

Earlier this week...

In Tasers Pose Risks to Heart, a Study Warns the New York Times tells us of a study completed by cardiologist Douglas P. Zipes titled Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death Associated with Application of Shocks from a TASER Electronic Control Device published in  Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association.  

"The study, which analyzed detailed records from the cases of eight people who went into cardiac arrest after receiving shocks from a Taser X26 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."

The article does not mention that tens of thousands of law enforcement officers have been "tazed" as part of their training to use Tasers and not one of them has experienced a cardiac emergency.  Some have experienced orthopedic injuries, but no deaths.

Nor does the article mention the controversy surrounding the concept of excited delirium.  While ExDS is not accepted by all professional medical associations it seems to have some explanatory power when it comes to sudden in-custody deaths of arrested persons, included those subdued using Conducted Energy Devices (CED). 

There is one more interesting detail in the article:

"The author of the study, Dr. Douglas P. Zipes, a cardiologist and professor emeritus at Indiana University, has served as a witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against Taser — a fact that Mr. Tuttle [a spokesman for TASER International] said tainted the findings. 'Clearly, Dr. Zipes has a strong financial bias based on his career as an expert witness.'" 

That sounds more than a little like a notoriously small study written by former physician Andrew Wakefield alleging a connection between vaccines and autism.  His paper, which drew its death-dealing conclusions from a sample size of 10 patients, was fraught with flaws and ethical concerns, repudiated in peer review, disavowed by his fellow authors, and formally retracted from the Lancet.  When it was also discovered that Wakefield was employed by liability attorneys litigating alleged vaccine injury cases he was struck from the medical register.  

It would not take much for Zipes to be a better man than Wakefield, but the anti-Taser crowd may need a spokesman with little less baggage and a slightly larger sample size.

*UPDATE: I sent this message to Dr. Terrill today [3 May 2012]

I am not a subscriber to the print version of Justice Quarterly so I have only read the abstract on EBSCO and your statements in the MSU press release regarding Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and Citizen Injuries: The Shocking Empirical Reality.  I have, however, reviewed your earlier paper Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes, from which I presume you extracted data for the JQ article.  With regard to the earlier paper I'm wondering if the following assessment of citizen injury data are accurate.

1) The report tracks injuries reported after a use of force incident without determining whether or not the injuries were the result of the subject's behavior that led to the decision to apply force or if the injury was the result of the application of force by law enforcement.

2) The report analyzes the rate of reported injuries extracted from use of force reports, citizen complaints, and litigation. With the exception of the self-descriptive category "broken bones" the study does not describe the severity of injuries in categories “bruise,” “abrasion,” or “laceration.”

3) It seems that reported injuries resulting from use of force incidents involving CED use include the abrasions (scrapes and skin marks) or lacerations (cuts to the skin) caused by the Taser barbs.

In this context when you are quoted as saying, "But in terms of safeness, our data conclusively shows they are not safe to citizens," do you regard the term "safe" as synonymous with "injury free?"  I propose there is a difference between minor injuries noted, those requiring medical treatment, and those resulting in long-term disability.  A pair of small abrasions from Taser barbs ought to be regarded as less significant than serious injuries resulting from the use of impact devices or a hogpile.  Is the data your team collected sufficiently granular to add a "severity of harm" axis to your injury results?