A Reply to "Statistical Analysis of the 2005 Annual Report:Use of
Tasers by the Toronto Police Service"(August 15, 2006), and
Recommendations Concerning the Taser--
A Deputation-Submission to The Toronto Police Services Board,
September 28, 2006
                                                 by Don Weitz

Two major findings emerge from the statistics provided:
1.. Toronto police - particularly the ETF -  tasered (fully deployed) a
disproportionately large number of psychiatric survivors- "emotionally
disturbed persons"/"EDPs",

2. The overwhelming majority of people tasered posed no immediate or
serious threat to the officer's life or personal safety. In 6 divisions
involved in the TASER pilot project in 2005 - 11, 14, 51, 52, 53, 55
- ETF
and PSU police tasered ("fully deployed") 11 emotionally disturbed
people out of a total of 33. In other words, 33% or one-third of the
TASER-targets were psychologically vulnerable people - these figures
challenge Chief Bill Blair's conclusion,  "there is no correlation
between Taser use and EDPs"(August 15, 2006, p.3. I strongly
disagree, 33% or one-third is highly significant.

Now let's take a look at  another section of Chief Blair's 2005
report on police use of the TASER by the ETF - not the PSU. This report provides
details re the police divisions involved, the nature of the
"incident"where TASERS were used, the reasons, and injuries. Again,
we find the TASER targeted a disproportionately large number of
psychiatric survivors or emotionally disturbed persons ("EDPs").
According to this report, among 65 people tasered in Toronto in 2005,  or 40% were "EDPs".

Another disturbing finding is that among these psychologically vulnerable people, nine or

approximately one-third were classified as "suicidal." In short, police threatened to use
tasers against or actually tasered suicidal citizens! To say the
least, this is retraumatizing, this is police overkill!

Let's also look at the reasons listed for police deploying or using the
TASER - "assaultive behaviour" is listed 39 times or roughly 67% of the
time. This term is not. explained. Was the assault life-threatening? We
don't know, because  "assaultive behaviour" is not specified. If the
assault was not life-threatening, TASERS should not be used according to
international standards, "set out under the United Nations Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officers and the Basic Principles on the Use of
Force and Firearms by law Enforcement officials. These require that force
should be used as a last resort and that officers must apply only the minimum
amount of force necessary to obtain a lawful objective. They also
provide that all use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed as
well as designed to avoid unwarranted pain or injury." ("Canada: Excessive and
lethal force? Amnesty International's concerns about deaths and
ill-treatment involving police use of tasers", November .30, 2004, p.1)

Some of the other reasons listed for police use of the TASER included
possession of a "knife", "357 Magnum handgun", "large pipe", "shooting
suspect", "running in traffic", "threatening suicide", "subject put head
and hand through plate glass window", "broken bottle", "edged
weapon-mirror", "2 meat cleavers".. However, there was NO MENTION OF ANY
ACTUAL OR IMMEDIATE LIFE-THREATENING EVENT before police used the
TASER. -such as firing a gun,  using or lunging with a knife, or using any other
weapon against a police officer. None of these reasons qualifies as a
life-threatening event. Nevertheless, the TASER was used. Further,
only 5 instances of injuries were listed - 2 self-inflicted cuts such as
"slashed wrists" and 3 instances of cuts inflicted by the police. This low
number of injuries is suspect, it neglects to mention any serious medical
problems or emergencies such as arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, or respiratory problems
that TASERS have frequently caused or triggered - according to the
medical literature. Also no deaths were reported.

These reports from Police Chief Bill Blair on Toronto police use of
TASER are not totally accurate, informative or credible. "Assaultive
behaviour" and other unspecified reasons do not justify using TASERS to subdue or
forcibly control citizens, including psychiatric survivors or
"emotionally disturbed persons", judged allegedly dangerous, threatening or
"emotionally disturbed"

"Where officers have reasons to believe that a disturbed individual
may be acting in a violent or threatening manner as a result of mental illness,
efforts should be made to involve mental health specialists in
dealing with the disturbed person. Policing methods based on force should only use 
as a last resort." ('Additional recommendations", Amnesty International,
November 30, 2004)

It's clear that Tasers have sometimes been used as a first resort - not
last resort - against allegedly "mentally ill" or "emotionally disturbed
persons" in Toronto.


RECOMMENDATIONS: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES TO TASERS

1.TASERS should be immediately banned in Toronto and across Canada,
because these allegedly non-lethal weapons are frequently harmful and  deadly,

despite claims of safety and effectiveness by the police and TASER manufacturers.

They should be banned for these reasons:
a. TASERS have caused or been implicated in triggering life-threatening
crises including cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia and respiratory
problems;
b. TASERS have caused several sudden deaths of people in police
custody and on the street - at least 9 deaths reported so far in
Canada and over 200 in the USA; and
c. There are no credible, independent and scientific studies proving
that
TASERS are medically safe and can save lives.

2. The Toronto police, including the Emergency Task Force (ETF) and
Public Safety Unit (PSU), should not be called or expected to respond 
to people experiencing an emotional crisis, a suicide attempt, or
drug withdrawal crisis, mainly because the police generally lack
crisis-counselling skills and are not trained to use non-threatening, 
non-violent, and no-force methods. People in these crises frequently
act in a highly agitated, impulsive, extremely fearful or panic-
stricken state, which the police sometimes misinterpret or exaggerate 
as personal threats to their safety. Further, the appearance of a
uniformed police officer, a badge, a warrant, or any visible sign of
state authority could easily aggravate the person's emotional state.

3. Instead of the police, mobile crisis-response teams consisting of
psychiatric survivors, street nurses and community workers trained in
crisis counseling, trauma counselling and/or conflict-resolution
should be available to respond to people-in-crisis on the street using non-
violent, non-threatening, non-confrontational, and supportive methods.

4. Community-based 24-hr crisis centres and 24-hr dropins staffed with
psychiatric survivors, community health-outreach workers and street
nurses trained in crisis or trauma counseling and/or conflict-resolution should
also be available to provide safety and emotional support to citizens
undergoing an emotional or traumatic crisis. Except in medical
emergencies, referral to a hospital emergency department is generally not helpful to
people going through a life crisis including attempted suicide, mainly
because common personal crises are frequently pathologized as "mental
illness" and treated with hi-risk psychiatric drugs.

5. 24-hr withdrawal centres should be available to people undergoing
withdrawal from addictive 'street drugs' and psychiatric drugs; these
centres should be staffed with trained health workers including street
nurses, psychiatric survivors, and on-call medical doctors. These
withdrawal centres should be strategically located and
wheelchair-accessible in the downtown core and GTA.

I ask the Board to discuss and support these proposals as
constructive and humane alternatives to TASERS, as well as "nonlethal"

PEPPER SPRAY that has also caused several injuries or medical complications and
deaths in Ontario and other provinces.

Sincerely,
Don Weitz
1401-38 Orchard View Blvd., Toronto, Ontario M4R 2G3

The Board didn't bother discussing my proposals, they flatly rejected
them.