They're making headlines all the time.  Some of law enforcement's newest less lethal devices, Tasers, have been the cause of much controversy since police and corrections departments nationwide have begun to add the less lethal technology to they're weapons arsenal. 

With some people dying after being shocked with Tasers, human rights organizations, like the American Civil Liberties Union, have called for law enforcement to refrain from using the technology until more research, training and standards become available regarding its use. 

But, autopsies have revealed that many of the deaths in the cases where Tasers were used, were, indeed, caused by other health conditions.  With this knowledge, some law enforcement folks are sticking to their guns and defending the technology that at least one less lethal expert in the field says saves lives.

Recently The Corrections Connection Network News caught up with Sid Heal, a Commander with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who supports the use of Tasers in his department. 

While Heal talked about how Tasers benefit his agency, CCNN also discussed the topic with Will Harrell, the Executive Director of Texas ACLU, who has called for a moratorium on Taser use until stronger training and standards are developed.

Q: How can law enforcement benefit from the use Tasers?

Heal: The Taser is basically debilitating [and] incapacitating.  It degrades the person's ability to defy [law enforcement].  It's very close to being truly incapacitating, while still being non-lethal.

[The L.A. Sheriff's Department uses Tasers] in patrol.  We just bought another 250 to give to the detectives.  We have had spectacular success with them.  I can give you examples of people who have survived situations because we didn't have to resort to lethal force.  Had we replayed the scenario and removed [the use of the] Taser, it would not have been a survival instance.

One of the ones that everyone is going to be familiar with [is a situation] where an individual was trying to commit suicide and couldn't quite bring himself to do it.  He created an incident where law enforcement would have to do it [for him].  We talked to him for hours, trying to negotiate him to surrender and, finally, in frustration, he approached our SWAT team with a knife.  We shot him with bean bags.  We tried everything, [including] pepper spray.  Finally the SWAT team leader had a brand new Taser x26 that we had given him for an evaluation.  He was so ecstatic, he was almost vibrant with excitement because he didn't have to kill this guy.  He dropped him [with the Taser and] took the knife out of his hand.

Had that same scenario been replayed without a Taser, [he would have been killed].  He was in the process of creating a situation that was going to result in his death.  We were going to have to kill this guy - we had a guy assigned to shooting him.  Even the ACLU wouldn't have been able to find fault with [what we did].

Q: What is the Texas ACLU's position regarding the use of Tasers?

Harrell: We aren't against Tasers, per se.  It's when and under what circumstances and in what manner Tasers are used [that we are concerned about]. 

A Taser is better than a bullet any day of the week, but that doesn't mean that Tasers are to be taken lightly.  The whole idea was the use of Tasers in place of the use of guns, but [they were] only to be used in the very circumstances that a gun would have otherwise been used.  What has happened is that Tasers are being used to handle the mildest of tensions between officers and civilians.  That was never the idea. The exact policies that police departments have in application to the use of a firearm should be the exact policies that they have with regard to the use of a Taser.  If that were the case, we'd see much fewer incidences of abuse and death or other serious health side effects caused by this new technology.  It's quite a simple equation and I just don't know how things have gone so awry.

Q: Do you see any benefits to the use of Tasers?

Harrell: I think that there should be a flat moratorium on their use until police departments, [which] do engage [in their use] apply the policies that apply to the use of firearms to the use of Tasers and adequately train their officers in the use of Tasers.  I also think during the moratorium there should be [more] studies with regard to the long-term effects of the use of Tasers.  [From what I] understand, there is some evidence that, even if someone doesn't [experience] heart failure on the spot, they may develop [that] over time.  The long-term consequences need to [be] understood before [we] continue to use this instrument.

Police should have to fully document the circumstances that caused them to use a Taser.  I think also that police departments need to collect and report the demographic data of people against whom the Tasers have been used.  In Houston, there is a great disproportionality with regard to the use of Tasers on people of color as opposed to white citizens.

Q: How do you respond to cases where people have died after being struck by a Taser?

Heal: Bring us one case that can positively attribute [the death to the Taser].  As a matter of fact, even if you accept their worst case scenarios and accept everything [the ACLU and Amnesty International say] as absolute truth, it still comes out as the safest less lethal option we have in our inventory today.

Harrell:  Like in any tort, you've got to do an analysis of what was the proximate cause [of the malice].  In the long history of courts, there is always an assessment of proximate cause, so, yes, maybe somebody died as a result of heart failure and that person may have had a pre-existing condition, but it doesn't remove the fact that the heart failure would not have occurred were it not for the Taser application.

There a notion in the common law of courts called the "eggshell skull."  If you are responsible for the tort, the fact that the injured party was susceptible to greater damage than the normal [person] does not excuse the original action.

Q: Is there enough training out there for law enforcement personnel who use Tasers?

Heal: In my opinion part of the big problem is we're not in complete disagreement with the ACLU or Amnesty International.  The training tends to be sporadic and there are no standards - for training or for performance.  The federal government is seriously lacking in that.  For example, I am not sure [if] the LAPD has ever killed anybody with a Taser and I know the LASD hasn't and we are two of the largest agencies in the state.  We do have training and our own standards, even though they wouldn't be accepted by law enforcement universally.  There are two general philosophies - one is that you place the less lethal option in the force spectrum based upon the amount of expected injury.  We don't do that.  Our philosophy [revolves around] the amount of defiance [by the suspect] and, as a result of that, where we put the Taser in the available options is high on the force spectrum.  Some of these cases - I tell you my stomach just churns when I see some of these - there's no way, in my mind, you can justify [using] that level of force on a six year old child.  Needless to say, we are not.  The thing is that, because there are no standards, you could certainly make a case, based upon your understanding, where this needs to be [applied].  If you made those errors in my department, you'd be looking at some serious time on the books.

Q: What has been your experience regarding the use of Tasers thus far?

Heal: One of the things we found out with pepper spray is that the ACLU took us to court with claims that 30 deaths [were] caused by pepper spray.  We are following the same failed pathway with Tasers that we did with pepper spray.  What happened was we found out that it wasn't the pepper spray [that was killing people], but there was [a tendency for officers to place people on their stomachs] after they were sprayed [and they'd asphyxiate.  You can alleviate a lot of those [errors] by correcting the [procedures for the use of the technology].  It was not the technology, it was the procedures.  One of the things to look at right now, closely, is excited delirium.  If you are going to die from an electrical shock, you are going to die when you get it, not a day or two later.  It flies in stark contrast to the scientific evidence that we know of.  What we are looking for is meaningful solutions [for effective use of the Taser].