Hubbry Logo
TaserTaserMain
Open search
Taser
Community hub
Taser
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Taser
Taser
Taser
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Taser
Police issue Taser X26 device with cartridge installed
Product typeElectroshock weapons
OwnerAxon Enterprise
CountryUnited States
Introduced1993

Taser (stylized in all caps) is a line of handheld conducted energy devices (CED) sold by Axon Enterprise (formerly Taser International).[1] The device fires two small barbed darts intended to puncture the skin and remain attached to the target until removed by the user of the device. The darts are connected to the main unit by thin wires that achieve a high dielectric strength and durability given the extremely high-voltage electric current they conduct (typically 50,000 volts, or 2,000 volts under load), which can be delivered in short-duration pulses from a core of copper wire in the main unit. This enormous rush of voltage into the body produces effects ranging from localized pain to strong involuntary long muscle contractions, causing "neuromuscular incapacitation" (NMI), based on the mode of use (tasing frequency and environmental factors) and connectivity of the darts.[2] When successfully used, the target is said to have been "tased".

The first Taser conducted energy weapon was introduced in 1993 as a less-lethal option for police to use to subdue belligerent or fleeing suspects, who might otherwise need to be subdued with more lethal means such as firearms. As of 2010, according to one study, over 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies around the world used Tasers as part of their use of force continuum.[3] In the United States, Tasers are marketed as less-lethal (as opposed to non-lethal), since the possibility of serious injury or death still exists whenever the weapon is deployed. At least 49 people died in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser.[4] Personal-use Tasers are marketed in the US but prohibited in Canada, where there is a categorical ban on all conducted energy weapons such as stun guns and Tasers, except for use by law enforcement.

A 2009 report by the Police Executive Research Forum in the United States found that police officer injuries dropped by 76% in large law enforcement agencies that deployed Taser devices in the first decade of the 21st century compared with those that did not use them at all.[5] Axon and its CEO Rick Smith have claimed that unspecified "police surveys" show that the device has "saved 75,000 lives through 2011".[6][7]

History

[edit]

Tasers have a long history of use to prevent the escape of dangerous suspects without needing to resort to lethal force, or used to capture suspects without risking serious injuries to either the officer or the suspect. A United States patent by Kunio Shimizu titled "Arrest device" filed in 1966 describes an electrical discharge gun with a projectile connected to a wire with a pair of electrode needles for skin attachment.[8]

Jack Cover, a NASA researcher, began developing the first Taser in 1969.[9] By 1974, Cover had completed the device, which he named Taser, using a loose acronym inspired by the title of the 1911 novel Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, a book written by the Stratemeyer Syndicate under the pseudonym Victor Appleton and featuring Cover's childhood hero, Tom Swift.[10][11] The name made sense, given that the Taser delivers an electric shock. This was also done on the pattern of laser, as both a Taser and a laser fire a "beam" of energy at an object.

The first Taser model that was offered for sale, called the Taser Public Defender, used gunpowder as its propellant, which led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to classify it as a firearm in 1976.[12][13]

Former Taser International CEO Patrick Smith testified in a Taser-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper".[14][15][16]

In 1993, Rick Smith and his brother Thomas founded the original company, Taser,[17] and began to investigate what they called "safer use of force option[s] for citizens and law enforcement". At their Scottsdale, Arizona facilities, the brothers worked with Cover to develop a "non-firearm Taser electronic control device".[18] The 1994 Air Taser Model 34000 conducted energy device had an "anti-felon identification (AFID) system" to prevent the likelihood that the device would be used by criminals; upon use, it released many small pieces of paper containing the serial number of the Taser device. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that the Air Taser conducted energy device was not a firearm.

In 1999, Taser International developed an "ergonomically handgun-shaped device called the Advanced Taser M-series systems", which used a "patented neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) technology". In May 2003, Taser International released a new weapon called the Taser X26 conducted energy device, which used "shaped pulse technology". On July 27, 2009, Taser International released a new type of Taser device called the X3, which can fire three shots before reloading. It holds three new type cartridges, which are much thinner than the previous model.[19] On April 5, 2017, Taser announced that it was rebranding itself as Axon to reflect its expanded business into body cameras and software. In 2018, Taser 7 conducted energy device was released, the seventh generation of Taser devices from Axon.[20] The latest Taser device, the Taser 10 conducted energy device, was recently released in 2023.[21]

Function

[edit]
The Advanced Taser M26 in a green and black colorway for the United States military

A Taser device fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by thin insulated copper wire as they are propelled by small compressed nitrogen charges.[22][23] The cartridge contains a pair of electrodes and propellant for a single shot and is replaced after each use. Once fired the probes travel at 180 feet (55 m) per second, spread 12 inches (300 mm) apart for every 7 feet (2.1 m) they travel, and must land at least 4 inches (100 mm) apart from each other to complete the circuit and channel an electric pulse into the target's body.[24] They deliver a modulated electric current designed to disrupt voluntary control of muscles, causing "neuromuscular incapacitation". The effects of a Taser device may only be localized pain or strong involuntary long muscle contractions, based on the mode of use, connectivity and location of the darts on the body.[25][26] The Taser device is marketed as "less-lethal", since the possibility of serious injury or death exists whenever the weapon is deployed.[27]

There are a number of cartridges designated by range, with the maximum at 35 feet (11 m).[23] Cartridges available to non-law enforcement consumers are limited to 15 feet (4.6 m).[28] Practically speaking, police officers must generally be within 15 to 25 feet (4.6 to 7.6 m) to use a Taser, though the X26's probes can travel as far as 35 feet.[29][24]

The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing and barbed to prevent removal once in place. The original Taser device probes unspool the wire from the cartridge, causing a yaw effect before the dart stabilizes,[30] which made it difficult to penetrate thick clothing. Newer versions (X26, C2) use a "shaped pulse" that increases effectiveness in the presence of barriers.[31]

The Taser 7 conducted energy device is a two-shot device with increased reliability over legacy products. The conductive wires spool from the dart when the Taser 7 conducted energy device is fired, instead of spooling from the Taser cartridge which increases stability while in flight and therefore increases accuracy. The spiral darts fly straighter and faster with nearly twice the kinetic energy for better connection to the target and penetration through thicker clothing.[32] The body of the dart breaks away to allow for containment at tough angles.[20] Taser 7 has a 93% increased probe spread at close range, where 85% of deployments occur, according to agency reports. Rapid arc technology with adaptive cross-connection helps enable full incapacitation even at close range.[20] Taser 7 wirelessly connects to the Axon network, allowing for easier updates and inventory management.[33]

A Taser device may provide a safety benefit to police officers.[34] The use of a Taser device has a greater deployment range than batons, pepper spray, or empty hand techniques. This allows police to maintain a greater distance. A 2008 study of use-of-force incidents by the Calgary Police Service conducted by the Canadian Police Research Centre found that the use of the Taser device resulted in fewer injuries than the use of batons or empty hand techniques. The study found that only pepper spray was a safer intervention option.[35]

A typical Taser device can operate with a peak voltage of 50 kilovolts (1200 volts to the body) and an average electric current of 1.9 milliamps, delivered as 100-microsecond pulses at a rate of 19 per second.[36] A supplier quotes a current of 3-4 milliamps.[37]

Models

[edit]

As of September 30, 2024, Axon has three main models of Taser conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) available for law enforcement and civilians where it is legal. Axons also lists the Taser Pulse as a civilian weapon, which runs at a 30 second cycle once fired; this is intended to allow the user to drop the CEW after firing and the escape from the target while they are incapacitated.

The Taser X26P is a single-shot CEW. This was the main Taser model during the 2000s and 2010s, today it is intended as a compact model.[38]

The Taser X2 adds dual lasers and a button-activated warning arc function.[39] When the warning arc is engaged, the Taser CEW will display an arc of electricity at the front of the device without firing the cartridge, which is intended to intimidate an aggressor with the goal of having them voluntarily comply without the officer needing to use force.[40]

The Taser 7 is a two-shot device with spiral darts that spool from the dart allowing the probes to fly straighter. It also adds the ability to load cartridges intended for different ranges.[20]

The Taser 10 device was officially announced by Axon on January 24, 2023.[41] In addition to the functions of the Taser 7, the Taser 10 features an increased probe distance of up to 45 feet, waterproof capabilities, increased probe velocity (205 feet per second), and ability to deploy the probes individually allowing the officer to create their own "spread" unlike previous models, which relied heavily on precise aiming of the prongs at a fixed angle with the assistance of two lasers. The warning arc function was replaced with a high-pitched warning noise upon activating the weapon.[42]

Lethality

[edit]
Main article: Taser safety issues

As with all less-lethal weapons, use of the Taser system is never risk-free. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[43]

There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including:[27]

  • Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
  • Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
  • Persons operating machinery or conveyances (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
  • Places where explosive or flammable substances are present
  • Tasers can ignite gasoline and hand sanitizer

Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said in 2020 that "under Georgia law, a taser is considered as a deadly weapon."[44][45][46] A 2012 study published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation found that Tasers can cause "ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac arrest and even death".[47][48] In 2014, NAACP State Conference President Scot X. Esdaile and the Connecticut NAACP argued that Tasers cause lethal results.[49] Reuters reported that more than 1,000 people shocked with a Taser by police died through the end of 2018, nearly all of them since the early 2000s.[50] At least 49 people died in the US in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser.[4]

Drive Stun capability

[edit]

Some Taser device models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the Taser device is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD (Electro Muscular Disruption) weapon as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the Taser [device] and placing it against an individual's body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."[51]

Guidelines released in 2011 by the U.S. Department of Justice recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain compliance technique be avoided.[52] The guidelines were issued by a joint committee of the Police Executive Research Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The guidelines state "Using the CEW to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject."

A study of U.S. police and sheriff departments found that 29.6% of the jurisdictions allowed the use of Drive Stun for gaining compliance in a passive resistance arrest scenario, with no physical contact between the officer and the subject. For a scenario that also includes non-violent physical contact, this number is 65.2%.[53]

A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the Taser [CEW], but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody."[54] The UCLA Taser incident[55] and the University of Florida Taser incident[56] involved university police officers using their Taser device's "Drive Stun" capability (referred to as a "contact tase" in the University of Florida Offense Report).

Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about Drive Stun, noting that "the potential to use Tasers in drive-stun mode—where they are used as 'pain compliance' tools when individuals are already effectively in custody—and the capacity to inflict multiple and prolonged shocks, renders the weapons inherently open to abuse."[57]

Users

[edit]
Taser demonstration by the North Dakota Air National Guard. The center person is being shocked through his back while being held to prevent falling injuries.

According to a 2011 study by the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice entitled Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons,[3] over 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies around the world used Taser devices as part of their use of force continuum. Just as the number of agencies deploying Taser conducted energy weapons has continued to increase each year, so too the number of Taser device related "incidents" between law enforcement officers and suspects has been on the rise.

Excited delirium syndrome

[edit]
Main article: Excited delirium
See also: Taser safety issues

Some of the deaths associated with Taser devices have been blamed on excited delirium, a controversial medical diagnosis that supposedly involves extreme agitation and aggressiveness. It has typically been diagnosed postmortem in young adult black males who were physically restrained by law enforcement at the time of death. The diagnosis was supported only by the American College of Emergency Physicians from 2009[58] to 2023[59][60] and the National Association of Medical Examiners until 2023.[61]

Excited delirium is thought to involve delirium, psychomotor agitation, anxiety, hallucinations, speech disturbances, disorientation, violent and bizarre behavior, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, and increased strength.[58][62] Excited delirium is associated with sudden death (usually via cardiac or respiratory arrest), particularly following the use of physical control measures, including police restraint and Taser devices.[58][62] Excited delirium is most commonly diagnosed in male subjects with a history of serious mental illness or acute or chronic drug abuse, particularly stimulant drugs such as cocaine.[58][63] Alcohol withdrawal or head trauma may also contribute to the condition.[64]

The diagnosis of excited delirium has been controversial.[65][66] Excited delirium has been listed as a cause of death by some medical examiners for several years,[67][68] mainly as a diagnosis of exclusion established on autopsy.[58] Additionally, academic discussion of excited delirium has been largely confined to forensic science literature, providing limited documentation about patients that survive the condition.[58] These circumstances have led some civil liberties groups to question the cause of death diagnosis, claiming that excited delirium has been used to "excuse and exonerate" law enforcement authorities following the death of detained subjects, a possible "conspiracy or cover-up for brutality" when restraining agitated individuals.[58][65][66] Also contributing to the controversy is the role of Taser device use in excited delirium deaths.[63][69]

Excited delirium is not found in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The term excited delirium was accepted by the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American College of Emergency Physicians, who argued in a 2009 white paper that excited delirium may be described by several codes within the ICD-9.[58] In 2017, investigative reporters from Reuters reported that three of the 19 members of the 2009 task force were paid consultants for Axon, the manufacturer of Tasers.[70][71]

Usage worldwide

[edit]
Taser legal status map by country
  Taser illegal or require restrictive license
  Ownership allowed without a permit but carrying prohibited or requires restrictive license
  Ownership and carrying require permissive license
  Ownership allowed without a permit but carrying requires permissive license
  Ownership and carrying tasers allowed without a permit

Australia

[edit]

Tasers are prohibited for civilian ownership in Australia in every state and territory.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78]

Canada

[edit]

Conducted energy weapons are classed as "prohibited weapons", making them illegal for civilian ownership.[79] In police services CEWs are very common, with most front-line officers having a Taser as a standard issue weapon.[80]

China

[edit]

Under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Control of Firearms and Public Security Punishment Law, Tasers are prohibited for civilian ownership in China without an application for a state licence. A weapons permit is required to purchase and own a Taser.[81]

Germany

[edit]

Since April 2008, Tasers can be legally purchased by persons 18 and older, but can only be carried by persons with a firearm carry permit (Waffenschein), which is only issued under very restricted conditions.

In 2001, Germany approved a pilot project allowing individual states to issue Tasers to their SEK teams (police tactical units); by 2018, 13 out of 16 states had done so. A number of states have also provided a limited number of Tasers to their general police forces. Some states, such as Berlin, have use of force guidelines that only permit Taser use where firearm use would also be justified.[82]

The Bundeswehr (German armed forces) does not issue Tasers nor are they used in training.[83]

Ireland

[edit]

Under the Firearms Act of 1925, Tasers, pepper spray and stun guns are illegal to possess or purchase in Ireland, even with a valid firearms certificate.[84][85]

Italy

[edit]

In Italy, Tasers are subject to strict regulation because they ae legally classified as weapons. Under Law No. 110 of 18 April 1975 (Supplementary provisions on the control of weapons, ammunition and explosives), Article 4 lists the Taser among weapons and objects capable of causing injury that may not be carried outside one's residence without official authorization.[86]

Jamaica

[edit]

Tasers are legal for civilians to own, provided they possess a valid permit under the Customs Act.[87] Currently,[when?] police in Jamaica do not have access to Tasers, but in February 2021, Corporal James Rohan, Chairman of the Police Federation, requested access to non-lethal weaponry in order to deal more effectively with encounters with mentally ill individuals.[88]

Japan

[edit]

Under the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law, import, carrying, purchase of conducted energy weapons is prohibited in Japan. The legality of stun guns is unclear.[89]

Poland

[edit]

Any electroshock weapon, including stun guns and Tasers, with amperage under 10 mA can be purchased by anyone over the age of 18 without permit or background checks.[90] As most Tasers fulfil those criteria, they are widely available in self-defence stores.[91]

Russia

[edit]

Stun guns and Tasers made in Russia can be purchased for self-defense without special permission, however, under the Federal Law No. 150 "On Weapons" of the Russian Federation it's illegal to import and subsequent sale of any foreign stun devices or Tasers into the country. The ban has been in place since the first version of the law was approved in 1996.[92][93]

United Arab Emirates

[edit]

Tasers are classified as weapons under Federal Law No. 3 of 2009, and therefore require a valid license to own or import.[94]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Tasers have been in use by UK police forces since 2001, and they require 18 hours of initial training, followed by six hours of annual top-up training, in order for a police officer to be allowed to carry and use one.[95] Members of the general public are not allowed to own Tasers, with possession or sale of a Taser punishable by up to 10 years in prison. As of September 2019, 30,548 (19%) of police officers were trained to use Tasers.[96] Tasers were deployed 23,000 times from March 2018 to March 2019, compared to only 10,000 times in 2013; however the UK police definition of "deployed" means that the weapon has been drawn; in the majority of cases it will not have been fired.[97] In March 2020, extra funding was provided to purchase devices to allow more than 8,000 extra British police officers to carry a Taser.[98]

Use on children and the elderly

[edit]

There has been considerable controversy over the use of Taser devices on children and in schools.

Criminal use

[edit]

The earliest known case of a taser being used on a child was on June 10, 1991, when one was used to incapacitate an 11-year-old girl in order to kidnap her. According to Jaycee Dugard, whenever she tried to escape, her kidnapper threatened to use the taser again.[99]

Police use

[edit]

In 2004, the parents of a 6-year-old boy in Miami sued the Miami-Dade County Police department for firing a Taser device at their child.[100] The police said the boy was threatening to injure his own leg with a shard of glass, and said that using the device was the safest option to prevent the boy from injuring himself. The boy's mother told CNN that the three officers involved probably found it easier not to reason with her child.[100] In the same county two weeks later, a 12-year-old girl skipping school and drinking alcohol was tased while she was running from police. The Miami-Dade County Police reported that the girl had started to run into traffic and that the Taser device was deployed to stop her from being hit by cars or causing an automobile accident.[100] In March 2008, an 11-year-old girl was subdued with a Taser device.[101]

Police claim that the use of Taser conducted energy weapons on smaller subjects and elderly subjects is safer than alternative methods of subduing suspects, alleging that striking them or falling on them will cause much more injury than a Taser device, because the device is designed to only cause the contraction of muscles. Critics counter that Taser devices may interact with pre-existing medical complications such as medications, and may even contribute to someone's death as a result. Critics also suggest that using a Taser conducted electrical weapon on a minor, particularly a young child, is effectively cruel and abusive punishment, or unnecessary.[102][103][104][105]

In May 2023, in Cooma, NSW, Australia, police tasered a 95-yr old dementia patient from less than 2 m (6.6 ft) away after apparently giving up on negotiations with her to drop the knife she was holding. At the time, she was standing upright & holding onto her 4-wheel walker. She survived the incident, but succumbed to head injuries sustained in the subsequent fall and died a week later. Her Estate sued the NSW Government, and, in April 2024, the accused & suspended police officer plead not guilty to manslaughter & remained free on bail awaiting trial.[106][107] On 27 November 2024, the officer, Senior Constable Kristian White, was found guilty of manslaughter.[108]

Excessive use by law enforcement

[edit]

In 2019, two Oklahoma police officers used Tasers over 50 times on an unarmed man resulting in death. Both officers were later convicted of second-degree murder.[109] In January 2023, Los Angeles Police Department officers tasered a teacher at least 6 times resulting in the man's death.[110] In 2014, Catasauqua, PA police officers inflicted serious injuries on a man, during a DUI arrest, when they tasered him eleven times while he was handcuffed and restrained in the back of a police vehicle.[111]

A New York Times study published in 2025 collected Taser log documents from 36 police departments in Mississippi from 2020 through 2024.[112] Data collection was incomplete, since several departments submitted no data or only partial data. The study identified 44,000 incidents in which one or more Tasers were triggered for at least one second each over the course of an hour. Reporters manually reviewed the nearly 1,000 cases that lasted at least 15 seconds. Once training operations were eliminated, the review found 611 incidents that lasted at least 15 seconds (the maximum shock duration per encounter recommended under national standards).[113] In addition to 44 allegations of "Taser abuse over the past decade from lawsuits and department records", the Times reporters found hundreds more "incidents that raise red flags by examining Taser logs across the state".[114] Cases described in the article include 11 people who were shocked while they were pinned down or handcuffed, such as Vivian Burks, an unarmed 65-year-old great-grandmother accused of marijuana use who was shocked 4 times in under one minute, and Keith Murriel, who died after being shocked at least 40 times for refusal to leave a hotel parking lot.

Use on non-human subjects

[edit]

Tasers are used to immobilize wildlife for research, relocation, or treatment. Since they are classified as a form of torture, it is more common to use tranquilizer darts.[115]

Use in torture

[edit]

A report from a meeting of the United Nations Committee Against Torture states that "The Committee was worried that the use of Taser X26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use."[116][117] Amnesty International has also raised extensive concerns about the use of other electro-shock devices by American police and in American prisons, as they can be (and according to Amnesty International, sometimes are) used to inflict cruel pain on individuals.

In response to the claims that the pain inflicted by the use of the Taser device could potentially constitute torture, Tom Smith, the Chairman of the Taser Board, stated that the U.N. is "out of touch" with the needs of modern policing and asserted that "Pepper spray goes on for hours and hours, hitting someone with a baton breaks limbs, shooting someone with a firearm causes permanent damage, even punching and kicking—the intent of those tools is to inflict pain, ... with the Taser device, the intent is not to inflict pain; it's to end the confrontation. When it's over, it's over."[118]

Legality

[edit]
Further information: Electroshock weapon § Legality

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Taser

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A TASER is a handheld conducted energy device that propels small barbed probes attached to thin wires up to 35 feet, delivering pulsed electrical discharges of high voltage but low amperage to override the target's neuromuscular system, causing involuntary muscle contractions and temporary incapacitation without permanent injury in most cases. The device, originally developed by aerospace engineer Jack Cover in the early 1970s as a non-lethal alternative to firearms for stopping airplane hijackings, derives its name from "Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle," inspired by science fiction. Cover patented the invention in 1974, and subsequent commercialization by Taser International (now Axon Enterprise) led to widespread adoption by law enforcement agencies worldwide. Empirical studies demonstrate that TASER deployment often results in high rates of suspect compliance, with exceeding 85% in field uses, and contributes to significant reductions in injuries to both officers and subjects compared to physical confrontations, batons, or impact weapons. These outcomes stem from the device's ability to induce neuromuscular incapacitation through electrical interference with motor s, grounded in physiological principles of . However, TASERs have faced scrutiny over rare adverse events, including deaths following use, prompting debates on cardiac risks and ; peer-reviewed reviews of human and animal data estimate the overall health risks as low, though studies funded by manufacturers report more favorable profiles than independent research. Despite such controversies, causal analyses rarely attribute fatalities directly to the electrical discharge alone, emphasizing instead multifactorial contributors like pre-existing conditions or drug influence.

History

Invention and Early Development

The Taser was invented by Jack Cover, an American aerospace scientist who had worked on NASA's , as a non-lethal alternative to firearms for subduing threats, particularly in response to a surge in airplane hijackings during the late . Cover drew inspiration from the "Tom Swift" adventure book series, naming his device TASER as an acronym for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle," which propelled two small electrodes attached to thin wires to deliver a high-voltage, low-amperage electrical discharge intended to temporarily incapacitate a target through neuromuscular disruption. Development began in 1969, with Cover conducting initial tests using compressed air propulsion before adapting charges—sourced from shells—for greater range and reliability, allowing the electrodes to extend up to 15 feet. The prototype relied on a battery-powered circuit to generate pulses mimicking the body's signals, overriding voluntary muscle control without causing permanent harm in most cases, though early designs were bulky, weighing about 2 pounds and requiring manual reloading after each shot. Cover received U.S. 3,803,463 for the device on April 9, 1974, describing it as a " for immobilization and capture" that fired pyrotechnic-driven projectiles to establish an electrical circuit with the target. Early commercialization efforts in the mid- involved demonstrations to and federal agencies, including the , which funded prototypes for air marshals, but adoption was limited by the gunpowder classifying the Taser as a "firearm" under U.S. regulations, restricting sales and interstate transport. By the late , small quantities were produced and tested by select police departments and units, revealing challenges such as inconsistent attachment on and the need for multiple units per officer due to capacity, prompting iterative refinements in design and power sources. Cover's work laid the foundation for electroshock weapons, though he retained ownership and licensed limited production until selling rights in 1993 to entrepreneurs who addressed regulatory hurdles by switching to compressed propulsion.

Adoption by Law Enforcement

The initial adoption of Tasers by law enforcement occurred in the mid-1970s following the invention of the device by Jack Cover, with the "Public Defender" model introduced for police use in March 1975. However, widespread uptake was hindered by the device's reliance on gunpowder propulsion, which classified it as a Title II firearm under U.S. regulations, limiting sales and deployment. Some agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, began limited use in 1980 after an officer-involved shooting, reporting deployments 2-3 times daily, but overall acceptance remained low due to safety concerns and technical limitations. Adoption accelerated in the late after TASER International, under new ownership, developed compressed-nitrogen propelled models avoiding restrictions. The Advanced TASER M26, introduced in 1998 or 1999, featured neuromuscular incapacitation technology, marking a shift toward effective less-lethal force options positioned between chemical sprays and batons. By 2000, over 500 U.S. agencies were testing or deploying these devices. The TASER X26, launched in 2003, further propelled adoption with its compact design, shaped pulse waveform for enhanced effectiveness, and built-in data logging for ; by 2004, it included recording features that addressed transparency concerns. By 2010, more than 15,000 agencies across over 50 countries had acquired TASER devices for testing or operational use, reflecting rapid global proliferation driven by evidence of reduced injuries and deployments in adopting departments. , usage expanded such that by the mid-2000s, 60-70% of s in surveyed agencies carried Tasers, with over 90% of approximately 18,000 agencies eventually equipping personnel. Internationally, adoption lagged but grew in the 2000s and 2010s; for instance, deployed around 15,000 units by 2020, while countries like and the integrated them following trials emphasizing benefits. Current figures indicate TASER weapons in use by over 18,000 agencies in more than 80 countries, with millions of field deployments recorded.

Technological Advancements and Recent Models

The TASER X26P, introduced in 2013, featured ergonomic improvements and enhanced performance over prior models, setting the stage for further refinements in probe deployment and electrical delivery. The TASER 7, released in October 2018, advanced probe technology with straighter, faster-flying projectiles possessing nearly twice the for superior penetration and a 93% increased spread at close range via specialized close-quarters cartridges. It incorporated adaptive cross-connect functionality, routing electrical pulses across all available contacts to sustain neuromuscular disruption despite clothing barriers or suboptimal probe placement, alongside dual laser sights for precise targeting in standoff and contact scenarios. Integration with the ecosystem enabled automated firmware updates, battery recharging, and evidence logging uploads. The TASER 10, introduced post-2018 as Axon's latest iteration, extends operational range to 45 feet—nearly double previous generations—through probes launched at 205 feet per second with optimized trajectories for accuracy and tissue penetration. It supports multi-cartridge loading for up to 10 probe deployments without manual reloading, facilitating multiple connection points (up to four) to enhance circuit completion for neuromuscular incapacitation. Safety-oriented enhancements include pre-discharge audible alerts and pulsing visual indicators for , plus improved environmental resilience such as dust-proofing and submersion tolerance to 1 meter for 30 minutes. Like the TASER 7, it syncs with Evidence for real-time data transparency.

Technical Operation

Principles of Electro-Muscular Disruption

Electro-muscular disruption (EMD) in TASER devices involves delivering pulsed to override voluntary neuromuscular control, inducing widespread involuntary muscle contractions that temporarily incapacitate the subject by preventing coordinated movement. This mechanism differs from mere , as the waveform is engineered to capture motor nerves at the , simulating but exceeding natural action potentials to cause tetanic contractions across large muscle groups. The process requires deployment of two barbed probes via compressed , connected by conductive wires to the device, establishing a circuit across the target's body with a separation of at least 12 inches for optimal effect. Effective disruption occurs when probes of opposite polarity contact the skin or clothing, spanning front-to-back or side-to-side to engage major muscle masses, with the electrical pathway depolarizing alpha motor neurons and causing supramaximal stimulation. The pulses propagate along the skin and through tissues, interfering with release at motor endplates and blocking efferent signals from the , resulting in loss of postural control and inability to resist or flee. TASER waveforms are typically monophasic rectangular pulses with durations of approximately 100 microseconds, delivered at repetition rates of 19 to 50 Hz, producing a net charge transfer of about 100-200 microcoulombs per pulse while maintaining low average power output (around 2-3 watts) to limit thermal and electrolytic risks. This frequency range aligns with the fusion frequency of muscle tetanus (roughly 40-50 Hz), sustaining contractions without fatigue, as lower rates cause twitches and higher rates may lead to accommodation. Peak open-circuit voltages reach 50,000 volts to ensure arc-through clothing up to 2 inches thick, but delivered voltage drops to 1,000-2,000 volts across body impedance (400-1,200 ohms), with current limited to 2-4 milliamperes per pulse to prioritize neuromuscular effects over cardiac capture. Empirical testing on subjects and animal models confirms that EMD achieves incapacitation in 95-98% of deployments when probe spread is adequate, primarily through disruption of the and antagonist muscle opposition, though efficacy diminishes with poor contact, thick insulation, or drugs impairing nerve conduction. Unlike direct-contact devices, which rely on localized via activation, EMD's remote delivery enables full-body effects, reducing the need for precise targeting.

Deployment Modes and Capabilities

TASER devices primarily operate in deployment mode, where a cartridge propels two small probes attached to the weapon by conductive wires, creating an electrical circuit upon target contact to induce neuromuscular incapacitation through repeated electrical pulses overriding muscle control. Optimal probe spread for effective circuit completion occurs at 7 to 15 feet (2 to 4.5 meters), though standard cartridges extend to a maximum of 25 feet (7.6 meters), with probe velocity and angle varying by model to enhance connection reliability. In drive-stun mode, the TASER is pressed directly against the subject's or to deliver localized electrical stimulation, primarily eliciting rather than full-body incapacitation, as the current path is confined to the contact area without probe separation. This mode functions with or without an installed cartridge and serves as a when probe deployment fails or for close-range scenarios. Deployment capabilities include timed electrical cycles of 5 seconds per trigger pull in models, comprising high-voltage pulses at approximately 19 per second with durations of 50-125 microseconds to stimulate motor nerves while minimizing deeper tissue penetration. Modern variants like the TASER 7 support both standoff and close-quarters cartridges for adaptable range, while the TASER 10 enables up to 10 sequential single-probe firings reaching 45 feet (13.7 meters) for extended threat neutralization without reloading. Some models feature adaptive circuitry to maintain delivery across multiple contact points and warning indicators such as arc displays or lasers to de-escalate without discharge.

Evolution of Models and Features

The first commercial TASER device, developed by Jack Cover, was the TF-76 model in the mid-1970s, which propelled two small darts attached to wires using to deliver high-voltage, low-amperage shocks for neuromuscular incapacitation. This was followed by the Air TASER 34000 in 1993, a second-generation civilian model that reduced size by approximately 50%, replaced with 1800 PSI compressed , and maintained similar electrical output for applications. TASER International shifted focus to with the Advanced TASER M26 introduced in 1999, which employed neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) via a 19 pulses-per-second to disrupt muscle control, powered by eight AA batteries and featuring a removable front cartridge for deployment up to 15 feet. The M26 marked a transition from civilian dart-firing stun guns to dedicated conducted energy weapons optimized for police use, with ports for recording discharge events. In 2003, the TASER X26 represented a significant refinement, incorporating shaped pulse technology that delivered a more efficient waveform—five percent more powerful than the M26—while achieving a 60% reduction in weight and size for easier duty-belt carry, along with enhanced capabilities to track usage and warnings. Subsequent variants like the X26P in 2009 improved battery life and , but core features emphasized reliability in field deployments. The TASER X2, released in 2011, introduced "smart" features including a warning arc for visible deterrence without probe deployment, dual-cartridge capability for secondary shots without reloading, and integration with Axon's Evidence.com platform for automated data syncing. These advancements addressed user feedback on operational flexibility during high-stress encounters. The TASER 7, launched in 2018 by (formerly TASER International), incorporated rapid arc technology for faster neuromuscular override, adaptive cross-connect probes that automatically pair for optimal circuit completion even if one probe fails, and dual sights for improved aiming accuracy, particularly in close-range scenarios under 7 feet. It also featured NOCK dry cartridge indicators to prevent misfires from empty loads. Most recently, the TASER 10, introduced in early 2023, extended to 45 feet via independently propelled and individually targetable probes—up to ten per device—allowing multiple activations without full reloads, with enhanced accuracy through improved probe ballistics and velocity control. This model prioritizes scalability in dynamic threats, building on prior optimizations for consistent incapacitation across body mass indices. As of , the TASER 10, TASER 7, and select legacy models like the X26 remain in active production or use, reflecting iterative improvements in probe deployment, energy delivery, and integration with body-worn cameras for evidentiary purposes.

Effectiveness

Incapacitation and Field Success Rates

Field studies of conducted energy weapons (CEWs), commonly known as Tasers, report incapacitation rates—defined as the device inducing neuromuscular disruption sufficient to halt active resistance—typically ranging from 68% to 85% in initial deployments against resisting subjects. A National Institute of Justice-funded analysis of over 2,100 first-iteration TASER deployments across multiple agencies found a 69% rate in ending suspect resistance, outperforming chemical agents (65%) and takedowns (41%) but slightly trailing canines (70%). In a peer-reviewed examination of TASER X2 probe discharges in the , operational subdual effectiveness was 68.5%, with success contingent on both probes achieving skin penetration and optimal spread (ideally 20-30 cm across major muscle groups). Effectiveness diminishes with suboptimal conditions, including thick clothing intercepting probes (reducing success by up to 30%), narrow probe spreads, subject intoxication, or crises, which can sustain resistance despite neuromuscular incapacitation; however, physical strength, fitness, or mental determination rarely enable resistance to a standard hit, as neuromuscular incapacitation overrides voluntary muscle control irrespective of these factors, with larger muscle groups potentially experiencing more pronounced effects due to greater stimulation. Drive-stun mode, involving direct contact without probes, yields lower rates (around 64% in first use) compared to probe deployment, as it primarily causes rather than full muscular override. A study of deployments in a large metropolitan agency reported 85% subdual of suspects, even among higher-risk populations, though multiple cycles were often required for full compliance.
Study/SourceSample SizeSuccess Rate (First Deployment)Key Factors Noted
NIJ Analysis (2008)2,113 TASER uses69%Probe misses (21% failure); outperforms chemical sprays
TASER X2 Study (2022)Officer-reported incidents68.5% interference; probe spread
TEM Journal (2024)Aggregated field data68% overallSubject condition (e.g., drugs); back targeting optimal
These rates reflect real-world variability, where manufacturer claims of near-100% neuromuscular incapacitation under ideal lab conditions often exceed field outcomes due to dynamic encounters and human factors. Newer models like the TASER 7 incorporate adaptive features to mitigate probe spread issues, potentially improving rates, though independent longitudinal data remains limited.

Reductions in Injuries and Lethal Force

Empirical analyses of police use-of-force incidents have found that conducted energy devices (CEDs), such as Tasers, are associated with lower rates of injury to both suspects and officers compared to alternatives like physical confrontations, batons, or canines. A (NIJ)-funded study examining data from multiple agencies reported that Taser deployment correlated with a 48 percent decrease in the odds of suspect injury during use-of-force events, though it did not significantly alter officer injury rates in all contexts. This aligns with findings from the , where Taser adoption led to a 48 percent reduction in suspect injuries in force incidents. Department-specific data further supports injury mitigation. In , suspect injury rates declined by 30 percent following full-scale Taser deployment across the force. , experienced a notable drop in officer injury rates post-adoption, attributed to Tasers enabling before physical struggles escalated. A separate of 2,348 use-of-force cases indicated that less-lethal weapons, including CEDs, reduced civilian injury severity when substituted for higher-risk methods, with suspects exhibiting defensive resistance facing 27 percent higher odds of injury without such tools. Regarding lethal force, evidence suggests Tasers contribute to fewer firearm discharges by providing an intermediate option that incapacitates resistant subjects without requiring deadly escalation. NIJ evaluations note that responsible CED use in lieu of hands-on tactics has lowered overall injury incidence, indirectly supporting reduced resort to guns in dynamic encounters. However, jurisdictional studies show modest rather than uniform reductions in shootings, with some agencies reporting declines tied to Taser availability, while others highlight variability based on deployment protocols. Axon Enterprise data, corroborated in agency reports, indicates suspect injuries fell 40 to 68 percent and officer injuries similarly decreased after Taser introduction in adopting departments. These outcomes underscore Tasers' role in prioritizing non-penetrative neuromuscular incapacitation, though effectiveness depends on probe placement, subject physiology, and officer training.

Empirical Studies and Comparative Data

A multi-agency analysis by the , covering over 24,000 use-of-force incidents across 12 departments, found that conducted energy device (CED) deployment, including Tasers, decreased suspect injury odds by 60% compared to alternatives like hands-on tactics. In specific field studies, such as Miami-Dade Police (762 incidents, 2002-2006), CED use reduced suspect injury odds by approximately 90% and officer injury odds by 68%. Similarly, Orlando Police data (4,222 incidents, 1998-2006) showed over 50% drops in both suspect and officer injury rates following CED adoption, with officer injuries declining by 60%. Field effectiveness for incapacitation varies, with manufacturer claiming rates of 80-97% based on internal data, though independent police department reviews, such as a 2019 investigation across departments like Fort Worth and New York, reported lower real-world success of 55-60% in subduing actively resistant suspects, often due to probe failures or clothing interference. A 2024 review of field deployments indicated CED success at 68%, outperforming irritant sprays (54%) but lagging behind firearms (97%), with failure rates of 15-47% against violent subjects. Studies note higher efficacy in contact mode versus probe deployment from distance, where up to 30% fail due to poor contact. Comparative injury data consistently shows Tasers associated with lower harm than physical alternatives. Prospective analyses of over 40,000 uses reported a 65% reduction in injuries relative to batons, manual control, or . Officer injury rates post-CED adoption dropped 25-60% in agencies like Austin and Orlando, versus hands-on methods that increased officer odds over 300%. yielded a 70% suspect injury reduction in similar multi-agency , but Tasers demonstrated superiority against intoxicated or heavy-set individuals in targeted studies. However, affiliated with Taser manufacturers shows systematically higher of favorable conclusions, up to 18 times greater than independent studies.
Force OptionSuspect Injury Reduction vs. BaselineOfficer Injury Rate ExampleSource
Taser/CED60% (multi-agency, >24k incidents)4% (field deployments)NIJ 2011; TEM Journal 2024
70% (multi-agency)16% (field deployments)NIJ 2011; TEM Journal 2024
Hands-OnIncreases >50% suspect oddsIncreases >300% oddsNIJ 2011
BatonBaseline for comparisonHigher than CEDResearchGate 2019

Safety Profile

Physiological Impacts and Risk Factors

TASER devices exert physiological effects primarily through neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI), wherein pulsed electrical currents stimulate afferent sensory nerves and efferent alpha motor neurons, inducing widespread, involuntary tetanic contractions that override voluntary control and result in temporary lasting seconds to minutes after discharge cessation. This mechanism targets peripheral nerves rather than the or cardiac tissue directly, with pulse characteristics (typically 19 pulses per second at 1,200–1,400 volts peak, decaying to low amperage) designed to minimize deep tissue penetration beyond superficial muscle layers. Acute exposures in healthy human volunteers produce measurable but generally transient physiological perturbations, including elevated heart rates (up to 20–30 beats per minute increase), transient hypertension, and metabolic shifts such as lactate accumulation persisting up to 30 minutes and a brief pH decline indicative of anaerobic metabolism from intense muscle activity.00005-X/fulltext) These responses correlate with exposure duration and intensity, with single 5-second applications showing no significant arrhythmias, electrolyte imbalances, or cognitive deficits beyond immediate post-exposure disorientation in controlled studies. Prolonged or repeated discharges, however, can amplify acidosis and elevate creatine kinase levels, potentially contributing to rhabdomyolysis in susceptible individuals.00005-X/fulltext) Key risk factors for severe adverse outcomes center on cardiac vulnerability, where inadvertent ventricular capture by the current—particularly with frontal thoracic probe placement—can precipitate ventricular fibrillation or asystole, as evidenced by swine models and human case analyses showing current pathways intersecting the heart conduction system. Incidence remains low, estimated at approximately 4 × 10^{-6} per deployment based on reported cardiac arrests, but escalates with comorbidities such as underlying ischemia, hypertrophy, or channelopathies; stimulant intoxication (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine); multiple shocks; or body mass index extremes that alter current flow dynamics. Falls from incapacitation pose additional risks of blunt trauma, particularly head injuries, independent of electrical effects. Empirical data from systematic reviews underscore that while population-level risks are mitigated in healthy adults, subgroup vulnerabilities—amplified by non-electrical confounders like or agitation—necessitate cautious deployment protocols to avoid cumulative stressors. Peer-reviewed human volunteer trials consistently affirm minimal long-term sequelae from isolated exposures, yet autopsy-linked fatalities highlight the interplay of electrical disruption with pre-existing physiological frailties.

Lethality Statistics and Causal Analysis

A of 33 human studies on conducted electrical weapons (CEWs), including Tasers, found no evidence associating CEW exposure with adverse health outcomes such as mortality, with risks estimated as low based on field and controlled data. An expert panel convened by the (NIJ) analyzed deaths following electro-muscular disruption and concluded that the risk of death in CEW-related use-of-force incidents is less than 0.25% (1 in 400) in the general population, though higher in vulnerable subgroups. Bayesian modeling of cardiac mortality risks from CEW exposures yielded estimates of 2.2 to 5.3 deaths per 10,000 exposures, incorporating optimistic and pessimistic priors from empirical data on over 1,000 field uses and swine models. In the United States, approximately 1,081 deaths occurred following Taser use from the early through 2019, amid millions of deployments, though these incidents typically involved factors rather than direct CEW causation. Field studies indicate CEW introduction correlates with reduced overall suspect fatality rates in resistant encounters, from roughly 1 per 1,000 without CEWs to 1 per 3,000 with them, attributing this to alternatives to firearms. Autopsy analyses of CEW-proximate deaths reveal primary causes as stimulant intoxication (e.g., or in ~50% of cases), underlying cardiac conditions, or , with CEWs identified as a contributing factor in only a minority (~10-20%) via mechanisms like exacerbation or rare ventricular capture. Causal pathways emphasize that CEW waveforms prioritize neuromuscular incapacitation over sustained cardiac disruption, with pulse durations insufficient for inducing in healthy hearts under typical thoracic probe placements; risks amplify with multiple sequential discharges, stimulants altering excitability, or pre-existing conduction abnormalities. NIJ panel findings underscore that while CEWs are not risk-free—particularly in prolonged exposures or combative subjects—they lack conclusive links to direct deaths, as evidenced by absence of such outcomes in over 1,200 consecutive deployments reviewed. Contributing suspect factors, including drug intoxication and crises, independently elevate sudden death susceptibility, often precipitating CEW necessity in high-risk arrests.

Medical Considerations Including Excited Delirium

Conducted energy weapons (CEWs) such as TASER devices induce neuromuscular incapacitation through electrical pulses that disrupt voluntary muscle control, leading to temporary physiological changes including elevated , , and mild in exposed individuals. These effects are typically transient and resolve without intervention in healthy subjects, with peer-reviewed studies on volunteers reporting no clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias or metabolic derangements from standard 5-second exposures. However, risks escalate in vulnerable populations, such as those with pre-existing cardiac conditions or when probes are positioned directly over the heart, potentially inducing in rare instances, as demonstrated in swine models simulating anatomy. Falls following deployment account for most non-trivial injuries, including fractures or head trauma, occurring in approximately 0.25% of field uses. Excited delirium syndrome (ExDS), characterized by acute agitation, , and altered mental status often linked to psychostimulant intoxication, has been associated with sudden deaths during restraint episodes involving CEWs. Forensic analyses of custody deaths frequently cite ExDS as a contributing factor, particularly in cases with or presence, where metabolic exhaustion and catecholamine surge precede independent of electrical discharge. No peer-reviewed evidence establishes direct between TASER pulses and ExDS onset or ; instead, studies indicate CEW use on such individuals reflects response to extreme behavioral disturbances already heightening mortality risk from underlying physiology. Critics, including advocacy reports, argue ExDS lacks validity as a distinct , labeling it a construct to attribute blame away from restraint practices or device use, though this view contrasts with clinical descriptions in literature recognizing syndromal patterns in stimulant-related fatalities. Empirical reviews of over 400 CEW-involved incidents show lethality rates below 0.01%, with multifactorial etiologies—drugs, , and —predominating over device-induced mechanisms in ExDS contexts. Medical guidelines emphasize rapid cooling, sedation, and monitoring for hyperthermic subjects post-deployment to mitigate risks, underscoring that CEW effects do not independently trigger but may coincide with its terminal phase.

Deployment Practices

Training Protocols and User Guidelines

Training for TASER energy weapon use typically involves manufacturer-provided certification programs, such as those offered by , which combine interactive eLearning modules, hands-on practical exercises, and scenario-based simulations to cover device operation, safety protocols, techniques, and legal considerations. 's operator courses emphasize exposure releases, warnings, and neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) mechanics, with annual recertification required to maintain proficiency, including physical competency tests and policy updates. In practice, most U.S. agencies mandate 4 to 6 hours of initial , with 63.7% requiring officers to device activation themselves to understand physiological effects. integrates use-of-force continua, for vulnerable populations, and scenarios developed from over 275 hours of expert input to simulate real-world judgments. User guidelines prioritize deployment only when lesser interventions fail and an immediate of or escape exists, with verbal warnings issued when feasible to allow compliance. Probe deployment targets the lower for optimal spread (at least 12 inches or 30 cm between probes) to achieve NMI, avoiding sensitive areas such as the head, neck, genitalia, or chest to minimize cardiac risks. A standard activation cycle lasts 5 seconds, limited initially to one cycle followed by reassessment; total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds, with a maximum of three cycles recommended unless justified by ongoing threats. Drive-stun mode, where the device contacts the skin without probes, is discouraged as a primary pain-compliance tool due to limited incapacitation efficacy and higher injury risks; newer models like the TASER 10 eliminate this capability entirely, focusing on probe-based NMI with up to nine deployment opportunities. Restrictions include prohibiting use against handcuffed subjects unless they pose an active threat, or in scenarios involving moving vehicles, elevated positions, or high-risk individuals such as pregnant women, children, the elderly, or those with frailty, except as a last resort. Post-deployment, all exposed subjects require medical evaluation, with prolonged activations (>15 seconds) necessitating transport; incidents must be documented, supervised for review, and tracked agency-wide to identify patterns.

Primary Users and Agency Adoption

The primary users of Tasers are officers, predominantly patrol personnel in departments, county sheriff's offices, and state agencies throughout the . These devices serve as conducted energy weapons within the use-of-force continuum, intended to incapacitate resistant subjects without resorting to lethal options. Approximately 18,000 U.S. agencies incorporate Tasers into their arsenals, reflecting broad institutional adoption driven by the need for intermediate force tools. Over 400,000 patrol officers equip themselves with Tasers, underscoring their prevalence in frontline policing. Agency adoption accelerated in the mid-2000s, with more than 11,000 agencies utilizing conducted energy devices like Tasers by , a figure that has since expanded. By , over 50% of major U.S. departments had integrated them, often following evaluations of their potential to reduce injuries compared to physical confrontations or firearms. Federal agencies, including some components of the Departments of and , also deploy Tasers selectively, though local and state entities account for the majority of usage. Corrections officers in prisons and jails employ Tasers for controlling inmates, but this application remains secondary to policing and carries distinct operational challenges in custodial settings. Military adoption is more restricted, limited to certain such as U.S. personnel for non-lethal restraint in base defense scenarios, but does not constitute a primary domain of deployment. Overall, law enforcement's embrace of Tasers stems from empirical assessments prioritizing officer safety and , despite varying field performance data across agencies.

International Usage Patterns

TASER conducted energy weapons (CEWs) are employed by more than 18,000 agencies across over 80 countries, reflecting broad primarily among police forces seeking non-lethal alternatives to firearms. In nations, usage is particularly entrenched, with policies emphasizing deployment by trained officers only after verbal commands and in scenarios posing imminent threats, often as a bridge between irritant sprays and lethal force. In the , TASERs were authorized for police in 2003, initially limited to firearms officers, expanding to specially trained units by 2008; by 2019, deployments in hit a record 10,396 incidents, with the TASER 7 model entering service in subsequent years amid ongoing evaluations of effectiveness and risks. mirrors this pattern, with widespread agency adoption yielding high compliance rates—93% of subjects surrendering upon device display in studies—though civilian possession remains prohibited under federal law. Australian states progressively integrated TASERs from the early 2000s, starting with trials in Victoria in 2003 and restrictions to specialized personnel in by 2002; reported a doubling of uses to over 300 incidents in 2023, prompting policy reviews on drive-stun applications. followed suit post-2006 trials, fully deploying TASERs in 2009 for operational use, with analyses confirming reduced reliance on higher-force options. Continental European adoption lags, often confined to pilots or select units due to stringent regulations on less-lethal tools; Denmark launched a 1.5-year TASER 10 trial across three districts in December 2024, evaluating potential nationwide rollout. Finland documented 88% subject compliance from display alone in field data, while Germany expanded stun gun issuance to patrol officers in several states by 2019 despite injury concerns. France tested expanded stun gun access in 2020 amid debates over chokehold alternatives, but broader EU patterns prioritize proportionality under human rights frameworks, with no outright police bans identified in major jurisdictions. Critics, including Amnesty International, highlight misuse risks in 40 countries, advocating stricter controls on direct-contact modes, though empirical deployment data underscore de-escalation benefits in authorized contexts.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Overuse or Misapplication

has alleged excessive Taser use in the United States, documenting over 290 deaths following deployment between 2001 and 2007, with the majority involving unarmed men who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury to officers or others. The organization cited patterns of multiple or prolonged shocks, including cases of up to 21 activations or cycles lasting 57 seconds, often on agitated or mentally ill individuals combined with other restraints like . The New York Union reviewed 851 Taser incidents across eight New York police departments and claimed that 15% involved inappropriate application to passively or verbally noncompliant subjects, including those already handcuffed, while nearly 60% failed to meet expert criteria for justified use involving active aggression or physical threat. Multiple shocks occurred in 38% of cases, with 16% exceeding three activations, and 75% lacked prior verbal warnings, contrary to recommended protocols. Specific incidents included the 2004 death of David Glowczenki in Suffolk County after nine shocks despite no weapon or crime, and the 2008 fatal fall of Iman Morales in during a response. The has acknowledged ongoing controversy over alleged overuse and intentional misuse, including post-handcuffing deployments and multiple activations linked to in-custody deaths, though it emphasizes that empirical analyses across agencies show Taser use correlating with 48-70% reductions in suspect injuries compared to alternatives like physical force. Suspect interviews in some studies report perceptions of excessive force, such as unnecessary shocks on compliant individuals. A investigative review of over 100,000 Taser logs from 36 U.S. departments identified 44 formal allegations of over the prior decade, attributing patterns to inconsistent policies allowing deployments without clear active resistance, though logs alone do not confirm misuse. Advocacy groups like the NYCLU have further alleged disproportionate application, with 58% of reviewed New York incidents involving Black or Latino individuals despite lower population shares in some areas.

Applications to Vulnerable Populations

Taser deployment on minors has been documented in various incidents, with a 2012 study of 109 cases finding no significant injuries among suspects under 18, and only 20% reporting minor probe puncture wounds. However, organizations have raised concerns about from the threat of deployment, particularly in school settings where school resource officers carry Tasers. guidance from 2020 emphasizes special protections for children in less-lethal weapon policies, recommending avoidance unless strictly necessary due to potential vulnerabilities in smaller body mass and developing . For pregnant women, empirical data remains limited, with no controlled studies on fetal effects, though a case reported following Taser exposure, prompting obstetric review recommendations. medical advisory statements in 2011 noted risks of muscle contractions potentially inducing labor, advising specialist evaluation post-exposure. Manufacturer guidelines from classify pregnant individuals as higher-risk, urging caution beyond healthy adults. Elderly individuals face elevated risks from Taser-induced falls leading to fractures or , compounded by comorbidities like cardiac conditions. A 2018 analysis of 1,028 U.S. Taser-related deaths identified over 50% involving "high-risk" groups, including the elderly, with nearly one-third of the population deemed vulnerable due to age-related frailty. Interim reports from the in 2008 highlighted that safety margins for healthy adults may not apply to the elderly, recommending priorities. Individuals with mental illness or exhibiting excited delirium syndrome—characterized by agitation, hyperthermia, and resistance—represent another contested area, with Tasers deployed in custody deaths where this diagnosis is invoked, though its scientific validity is disputed by medical associations as of 2023. Over 1,000 U.S. deaths since 2000 followed Taser use, frequently involving such cases alongside drug intoxication or pre-existing conditions, but causal links remain debated, with some studies attributing outcomes more to underlying physiology than the device itself. Police guidelines, such as those from PERF in 2011, advise heightened scrutiny for vulnerable subjects, including those with apparent mental health crises, to mitigate compounded risks.

Claims of Misuse in Interrogation or Torture

Claims of Taser misuse in or primarily stem from organizations and investigations into custodial settings, where devices have allegedly been deployed repeatedly or punitively to coerce compliance, extract information, or inflict pain on restrained individuals. has reported that electric shock equipment, including conducted energy devices like Tasers, is used for and ill-treatment in at least 40 countries, often in police custody or scenarios, due to insufficient regulation and safeguards against prolonged or contact-mode applications. A 2007 Committee Against statement classified certain Taser uses as potentially constituting under the UN Convention Against , citing risks of severe pain and psychological when applied to vulnerable detainees. Documented incidents include U.S. jail cases where Tasers were fired multiple times at handcuffed or prone , leading to accusations of torturous punishment rather than defensive force. A 2017 investigation identified over 100 deaths linked to Taser deployments in facilities, with experts describing repeated shocks—sometimes up to 17 cycles—as akin to , particularly when posed no immediate threat and were already subdued. In one 2009 case highlighted in the report, officers used a Taser on a restrained in a manner deemed excessively punitive. Internationally, documented electroshock devices, including Taser-like weapons, in torture practices in countries such as , , and , where they were applied during interrogations to induce confessions without leaving permanent marks. A notable U.S. example occurred in January 2023 in , where six Rankin County sheriff's deputies tortured two Black men, Eddie Parker and Michael Corey Jenkins, using Tasers multiple times during an unauthorized home raid and subsequent custodial abuse to coerce details about a prior shooting; the officers faced federal charges for the " and ," including electric shocks applied after the victims were handcuffed and non-resistant. The UN Special Rapporteur on echoed concerns in 2017, stating that such Taser applications in U.S. jails could amount to , urging investigations into patterns of misuse beyond legitimate restraint. These claims, often from advocacy groups like and the ACLU—which have faced criticism for selective emphasis on —contrast with manufacturer and agency assertions that Tasers reduce overall force lethality, though empirical reviews highlight risks when protocols prohibit use on passive subjects or exceed single-cycle discharges.

Regulations in the United States

At the federal level, Tasers and other conducted energy devices are not regulated as firearms under the , allowing unrestricted possession and sale nationwide absent state or local prohibitions. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives classifies such devices as non-firearms, exempting them from federal licensing or serialization requirements. Law enforcement use of Tasers lacks uniform federal regulation but is governed by agency-specific policies informed by Department of Justice guidelines, which emphasize deployment only after verbal commands fail and attempts are exhausted. training, typically 8-16 hours initially with annual recertification, is mandated by most departments, covering probe accuracy, drive-stun risks, and contraindications like proximity to the heart. Some states, such as and , require incident reporting to oversight bodies, enabling data collection on deployment frequency and outcomes. Civilian ownership is permitted in 49 states as of 2025, with prohibiting possession outright; , New York, and others impose restrictions like age thresholds (18 or 21) or felony disqualifiers but allow purchase following background checks in some cases. States like and require registration or permits for carry, while local laws often ban concealed transport or use in restricted areas such as schools. Felons and individuals under orders face universal bars, aligned with broader self-defense weapon statutes. There is no comprehensive international treaty specifically prohibiting or regulating TASER conducted energy weapons (CEWs), which are categorized as less-lethal tools intended to incapacitate without causing death in most cases. Their deployment falls under broader , particularly the UN Basic Principles on the and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), mandating that force be used only when strictly necessary to protect life or prevent serious , with proportionality assessed based on the threat level and alternatives available. Violations of these principles through TASER misuse can constitute breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including rights against arbitrary deprivation of life (Article 6) and torture or cruel treatment (Article 7). The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in in 2020, defining CEWs like TASERs as devices offering substantially reduced lethality compared to conventional firearms but requiring strict safeguards. The guidance stipulates that TASERs should not be deployed against vulnerable populations—such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, or those with known medical conditions—except in exceptional circumstances where lesser force fails, and prohibits prolonged or repeated discharges to avoid risks of or . It emphasizes mandatory training, attempts prior to use, and post-incident medical evaluation, aligning with the UN for Officials. UN human rights bodies have issued targeted restrictions: the Committee Against has deemed certain TASER applications, particularly repeated shocks, as potentially amounting to due to induced severe pain and health risks, urging states to limit use and investigate abuses. Similarly, the Committee on the Rights of the recommended in 2023 prohibiting TASERs against minors, citing violations of the Convention on the Rights of the amid documented cases of and . Non-governmental organizations like advocate for global trade controls on projectile electro-shock weapons, highlighting absent regulations enabling misuse in over 30 countries, though such calls lack binding force and reflect advocacy perspectives rather than consensus legal norms. Regionally, the addresses TASERs within anti- frameworks, recommending member states ban exports of electro-shock equipment to regimes with torture records and impose domestic use protocols compliant with the (ECHR). ECHR jurisprudence, such as in cases involving excessive force, holds states accountable for TASER deployments breaching Article 2 () or Article 3 (inhuman treatment), with the requiring evidence of necessity and minimal risk. The Guidelines on Less-Lethal Weapons (2018), developed by humanitarian experts, further urge restrictions on CEW use in crowds or against passive resistors, prioritizing non-violent alternatives. Despite these, over 45 countries authorize police TASER use under national guidelines, with variations in restrictions like bans on drive-stun modes or civilian possession.

Additional Applications

Civilian Self-Defense and Non-Law Enforcement Use

Conducted energy devices (CEDs) such as TASERs are available for civilian purchase primarily for , marketed by manufacturer as non-lethal alternatives to firearms. As of 2023, civilian ownership is legal in 49 states, with maintaining a prohibition, though this restriction faces ongoing legal challenges. Many states impose minimum age requirements of 18 or 19 for purchase, and local ordinances may add further restrictions on carry or use. Civilian TASER models, including the and Bolt series, function by firing barbed probes attached to wires that deliver high-voltage, low-amperage electrical to disrupt neuromuscular control, typically for a 30-second cycle to facilitate escape. Effective deployment range is limited to about 15 feet, requiring sufficient probe separation (at least 12 inches) for circuit completion and incapacitation. Axon reports over 198,000 units sold to civilians as of 2010, with policies to replace devices expended or left behind during verified incidents at no cost. Empirical data on civilian efficacy is sparse, with most studies focusing on applications where TASERs achieve incapacitation rates of 60-85% in use-of-force encounters, though real-world agency reports cite lower figures around 55% due to variables like thick , impairment, or multiple assailants. Failure modes include single-probe contact or insufficient spread, potentially rendering the device ineffective and leaving the user vulnerable without a secondary option. Documented civilian success stories are largely anecdotal, with limited peer-reviewed case analyses available. While positioned as less-lethal tools with a reported 99.75% no-serious-injury rate across field uses, TASERs carry risks of adverse physiological effects, including rare cardiac arrhythmias, particularly in vulnerable individuals or with prolonged exposures. Legal justification for use mirrors general standards, requiring reasonable threat perception and proportional response, with potential civil liability if deemed excessive. Outside the U.S., civilian access varies; for instance, Russian law permits stun gun ownership without special permits under No. 150.

Applications Involving Non-Human Subjects

agencies have employed TASER devices against aggressive animals, particularly s, when they pose an imminent threat to officers or civilians. For example, in April 2025, police deployed tasers at multiple locations to subdue a vicious involved in an incident, confirming no human injuries resulted. In another case, a 2018 incident captured on bodycam showed an officer using a taser on an attacking to neutralize the threat. The device's manufacturer, , indicates that TASER energy weapons have proven effective in most applications against aggressive animals, serving as a non-lethal alternative to firearms. In wildlife management, TASERs provide a tool for temporarily incapacitating large animals during human-wildlife conflicts, avoiding the prolonged recovery times associated with chemical immobilants. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game initiated experimental use around 2005, following an encounter with an aggressive moose, testing modified devices like the MX26 on captive moose and wild brown bears. These tests demonstrated successful short-term immobilization, with blood samples revealing stress hormone levels normalizing within 20-30 minutes post-exposure, compared to 24-48 hours for drug-based methods; animals typically fled rather than escalated aggression. Alaska became the first U.S. state wildlife agency to formalize procedures and training for limited TASER application in such scenarios. To support these efforts, Taser International released the TASER Wildlife ECD in 2011, a semi-automatic, ruggedized variant optimized for large species like bears and , with a three-shot capacity, 35-foot range, targeting, and environmental resistance to elements such as and . Adoption has expanded, with evaluations in places like for deterring nuisance bears in 2018, reflecting growing interest among U.S. and international managers as a less-lethal option over traditional repellents or lethals. The highlights welfare concerns, noting that TASER discharges can cause serious injury or death, particularly in small animals like cats, due to the device's high-voltage neuromuscular incapacitation mechanism. Its National Animal Control Association advises against routine use for animal capture or restraint, permitting it only defensively against aggressive dogs by trained personnel while prohibiting application to smaller .

References

  1. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12841
  2. https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing/conducted-energy-devices-taser
  3. https://www.police1.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/police-history-how-a-nasa-scientist-invented-the-taser-QJIJyBG5xEJoNU9y/
  4. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-jack-cover13-2009feb13-story.html
  5. https://experts.azregents.edu/en/publications/the-taser-as-a-less-lethal-force-alternative-findings-on-use-and-/
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334810761_Benefits_Risks_and_Myths_of_TASERR_Handheld_Electrical_Weapons
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7881359/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002870311004194
  9. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222981.pdf
  10. https://gizmodo.com/how-the-taser-was-invented-1643251944
  11. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3803463A/en
  12. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/16cover.html
  13. https://www.officer.com/tactical/less-lethal/article/21251746/history-of-the-taser-how-it-became-an-essential-police-tool
  14. https://www.axon.com/resources/history-of-the-taser-brand
  15. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/taser-international-x26
  16. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/police-use-force-impact-less-lethal-weapons-and-tactics
  17. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/france-swaps-chokehold-for-stun-guns-after-police-protests
  18. https://www.axon.com/taser-brand-statistics
  19. https://taser-evolution.axon.com/
  20. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axon-launches-taser-7-and-axon-body-3-with-free-records-management-system-300725547.html
  21. https://www.axon.com/products/taser-7
  22. https://www.axon.com/products/taser-10
  23. https://www.theiacp.org/resources/document/electro-muscular-disruption-technology-9-step-strategy-for-successful-deployment
  24. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233432.pdf
  25. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA600257.pdf
  26. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/taser-10-medical-assessment-and-technical-reports/sacmill-statement-on-the-medical-implications-of-the-taser-10-conducted-energy-device-system
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022480407001849
  28. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA597215.pdf
  29. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4312669/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236917133_40-Hz_Square-Wave_Stimulation_Requires_Less_Energy_to_Produce_Muscle_Contraction_Compared_with_the_TASERR_X26_Conducted_Energy_Weapon
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19964799/
  32. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/doc/slspublic/tasersv2.pdf
  33. https://domesticpreparedness.com/critical-infrastructure/electro-muscular-disruption-technology-and-how-it-works
  34. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/electro-muscular-disruption-technology-nine-step-strategy-successful
  35. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/boards-amp-commissions/documents/opc/uof/304-ecw-procedure.pdf
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822003504
  37. https://www.police1.com/less-lethal/articles/taser-basics-what-every-judge-and-jury-should-know-W5RS8Y8xfnzMBfLM/
  38. https://my.axon.com/s/article/Drive-stun-backup-x26p
  39. https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/taser.pdf
  40. https://www.axon.com/resources/the-evolution-of-the-taser-energy-weapon
  41. https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/tasertechnology.pdf
  42. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ps-sp/PS63-2-2000-1E.pdf
  43. https://quartr.com/insights/edge/axon-making-bullets-obsolete
  44. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224081.pdf
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X22001147
  46. https://www.temjournal.com/content/134/TEMJournalNovember2024_2918_2930.pdf
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247748662_The_TASER_as_a_Less_Lethal_Force_Alternative_Findings_on_Use_and_Effectiveness_in_a_Large_Metropolitan_Police_Agency
  48. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233281.pdf
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12031711/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2775771/
  51. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ECW-Final-Draft-2.pdf
  52. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf
  53. https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2808%2902061-1/pdf
  54. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf
  55. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/05/09/when-tasers-fail
  56. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=themis
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X08002357
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17719689/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6119932_Physiological_Effects_of_a_Conducted_Electrical_Weapon_on_Human_Subjects
  60. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.113.005504
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2374856/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24396013/
  63. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.113.004401
  64. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776303
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285652115_TASER_R_Exposure_and_Cognitive_Impairment
  66. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/final-findings-expert-panel-safety-conducted-energy-devices
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26095934/
  68. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/as-death-toll-keeps-rising-us-communities-start-rethinking-taser-use-idUSKCN1PT0Y3/
  69. https://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz1111/files/content/projects/Taser%2520Media%2520CPP.pdf
  70. https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2808%2902061-1/abstract
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5061757/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X11000369
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752912/
  74. https://phr.org/news/excited-delirium-often-cited-as-cause-of-death-in-fatal-police-encounters-is-scientifically-meaningless-phr-report/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3088378/
  76. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/excited-delirium-and-the-dual-response-preventing-in-custody-deaths
  77. https://www.axon.com/training
  78. https://my.axon.com/s/training-instructional-content/taser-10-operator-course-materials?language=en_US
  79. https://www.axon.com/resources/law-enforcement-training
  80. https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-p202-pub.pdf
  81. https://www.axon.com/help/taser-10/taser-energy-weapons/taser-10/operation/probe-placement.htm
  82. https://www.axon.com/resources/axon-s-taser-energy-weapon-policy-playbook-and-lexipol-s-sample-policy
  83. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/taser-weapons-use-tasers-selected-law-enforcement-agencies
  84. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/729922975/despite-widespread-use-police-rate-tasers-as-less-effective-than-believed
  85. https://media.cdn.lexipol.com/pdf/P1_CaseStudy_TASER.PDF
  86. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-jails/
  87. https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/463707/taser-devices-newest-tool-in-sfs-armory/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9887389/
  89. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50862398
  90. https://emj.bmj.com/content/40/2/147
  91. https://policinginsight.com/feature/advertisement/the-truth-about-taser-how-do-taser-energy-devices-protect-officers-and-subjects-alike/
  92. https://hugolawgroup.com.au/insights/police-use-of-tasers-and-oc-spray/
  93. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/sa-police-taser-use-more-than-doubles-south-australia/103522794
  94. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461355720947779
  95. https://www.facebook.com/Axon.ProtectLife/posts/denmark-national-police-are-now-live-with-taser-10-devices-%25EF%25B8%258Fthree-danish-police-/978732067622606/
  96. https://www.dw.com/en/in-germany-states-roll-out-stun-guns-despite-risks/a-49823803
  97. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/global-electric-shock-equipment-widely-abused-by-law-enforcement-agencies-due-to-alarming-lack-of-regulation/
  98. https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AMR511512007ENGLISH.pdf
  99. https://assets.nyclu.org/publications/nyclu_TaserFinal.pdf
  100. https://veritenews.org/2025/01/14/abuse-and-injury-result-from-uneven-rules-on-police-taser-use/
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22929134/
  102. https://www.forcescience.com/2012/09/first-study-of-taser-use-against-minors-no-significant-harm/
  103. https://crae.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/CRAE_POLICING-TASER-PRINT-1.pdf
  104. https://www.childcomjersey.org.je/media/1371/tasersadvice.pdf
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1316038/
  106. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016349209007967
  107. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f9541ed915d74e622b58c/DOMILL13_20110404_TASER06.pdf
  108. https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/usa-excessive-and-lethal-force-amnesty-internationals-concerns-about-deaths-and-ill-treatment-involving-police-use-of-tasers/
  109. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-vulnerable/
  110. https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/08/over-half-us-taser-deaths-were-vulnerable-individuals-says-report
  111. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/excited-delirium-doctors-abandon-diagnosis-police-custody-deaths/
  112. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/police-call-it-excited-delirium-civil-rights-groups-call-it-a-sham/
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9280280/
  114. https://www.aclunebraska.org/app/uploads/2015/11/dangerously_out_of_bounds_tasers_2014.pdf
  115. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-tasers-are-a-form-of-torture/
  116. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/amr510302006en.pdf
  117. https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/13/us/mississippi-white-officers-torture-black-men-federal-charge
  118. https://www.newsweek.com/taser-use-some-us-prisons-may-amount-torture-un-watchdog-says-741724
  119. https://www.aclu-co.org/news/aclu-charges-unnecessary-force-and-torture-letter-summarizing-complains-about-colorado-law/
  120. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/taser_penal_codes_regarding_air_taser_and_adv_taser.pdf
  121. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a246513.html
  122. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/taser-legality-by-state
  123. https://www.blingsting.com/pages/stun-gun-state-laws
  124. https://uguardsecurityproducts.com/stun-gun-laws-by-state/
  125. https://www.fightsense.com/blog/laws-on-tasers-vs-stun-guns-fightsense-legal-guide/
  126. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/LLW_Guidance.pdf
  127. https://dignity.dk/wp-content/uploads/electric-discharge-weapons-factsheet-english.pdf
  128. https://www.justforkidslaw.org/news/serious-concerns-over-authorisation-powerful-new-taser-day-after-bbc-exposes-ongoing-racist-and
  129. https://omegaresearchfoundation.org/storage/2024/04/ORF-CoE-Tools-of-Torture-Report-Revised-June-2018-FINAL_1.pdf
  130. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41619/documents/206121/default/
  131. https://domesticpreparedness.com/electro-muscular-disruption-technology-and-how-it-works/critical-infrastructure/
  132. https://www.axon.com/resources/the-truth-about-taser
  133. https://crateclub.com/blogs/loadout/are-tasers-effective-for-self-defense-a-comprehensive-analysis
  134. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/03/Volokh.pdf
  135. https://crateclub.com/blogs/loadout/can-you-use-a-taser-for-self-defense-exploring-the-implications-and-effectiveness
  136. https://www.quora.com/Are-taser-and-stun-guns-an-effective-tool-if-your-main-aim-is-just-to-neutralize-or-paralyze-an-attacker-assailant-or-anyone-who-would-do-you-harm
  137. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-taser-work-on-some-people-and-not-on-others-and-is-a-Taser-considered-a-deadly-weapon
  138. https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-every-used-a-taser-for-self-defense-what-was-your-experience
  139. https://www.axon.com/resources/how-safe-are-taser-weapons
  140. https://www.askadamskutner.com/wrongful-death/taser-injury-and-wrongful-death-lawsuits/
  141. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVhIPpBFZXs
  142. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydvoETD7psE
  143. https://www.axon.com/help/taser-7/taser-energy-weapons/operation/animal-effects.htm
  144. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=450
  145. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/07/04/a-tool-catching-on-in-the-world-of-wildlife-control-tasers/992a7d56-06f7-4a0c-a786-0580f6ab80a5/
  146. https://newatlas.com/taser-wildlife-contol-stungun/17641/
  147. https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/gsmnp-leaders-evaluate-using-tasers-on-nuisance-bears/51-532339818
  148. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/welfare-implications-use-electro-muscular-disruptive-devices-or-taser-r-devices-animals
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.