logo for print

Department of Justice Study Evaluates Electronic Control Device Technology; Report Obtained through FOIA Request Supports Superiority of TASER Devices

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.—TASER International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASR), the market leader in advanced electronic control devices (ECDs), today announced that it has obtained a copy of the draft final report dated January 25, 2008 of a U.S. Department of Justice funded study titled:  “A Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis of Conducted Energy Weapons: TASER X26 vs. Stinger S200” through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Institute of Justice.  According to the report, the purpose of the study is, “to objectively evaluate both the TASER International and Stinger weapon systems.  This is accomplished by evaluating the performance, safety, and reliability of both products.” (p. 10)

TASER International will be providing a copy of the report to Stinger Systems (NASDAQ:  STIY.OB) pursuant to on-going discovery in its patent infringement litigation, “TASER International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems,” in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, case number CV07-0042-PHX-MHM.

Some of the key findings of the 93-page report are:

  1. Lower level of incapacitation when exposed to the Stinger S-200
  2. “…the majority of people reported a much lower level of incapacitation when hit with the Stinger S200 in comparison to the TASER X26.” (p. 6)
  3. “In all cases of TASER deployment, the subjects were immediately incapacitated. However, the majority of people had little reaction when hit with the Stinger S200 while this CED was affixed to them via gator clips.” (p. 24)
  1. Safety Concerns
    1. “Further problems existed in that the Stinger cartridges would also discharge little pieces of plastic and metal that could best be described as ‘shrapnel.’  This was noted numerous times in testing as these items constantly stuck the research team.” (p. 37)
    2. “Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while the Stinger S-200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user also receives a shock for the duration of the cycle.”  (p.74)
  1. TASER X26 is a more reliable device
    1. “A quantitative review of the weapon systems shows greater reliability of the TASER X26 over its Stinger S200 counterpart.” (p. 6)
    2. Stinger S-200 “exhibited little constancy” (p. 35)
    3. “…the malfunction rate on the Stinger weapon, which was measured, for the initial equipment, at 47.35%.  Many times the cartridge simply would not fire…” (p. 36)
    4. “Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while the Stinger S200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user also receives a shock for the duration of the cycle.” (p.75)
  1. TASER X26 is a more durable device
    1. “… a number of cartridges were dropped from a height of four feet to determine their survivability.  None of the TASER cartridges broke during this test; however, fourteen out of the twenty Stinger cartridges were damaged upon impact with a carpeted floor.” (p. 7)
    2. “Additionally, a number of Stinger cartridges were broken while still in their shipping container.  The blast doors fell off, releasing the wire tether.”  (p. 68)
  1. Stinger’s Training Materials contained incorrect information
    1. Some of the material was found to be outdated and incomplete, and the instructor advised participants to ignore sections of the handout material where discrepancies were noted.” (p. 17)
  1. Stinger S-200 probes flew erratically and frequently broke
    1. “In addition to the erratic spread of the [Stinger] probes, the probes tended to fly in an untrue linear manner and did not penetrate the target as they would often hit the target sideways.  Evidence of this was when the barbs bounced off the target and flew back towards the researchers.” (p. 36)
    2. “One concern with the Stinger weapon system was that the Stinger S200 probes frequently broke free from their barbs in the target.”  (p. 6) 
    3. “As was the case with our initial volunteer tester, almost every [Stinger] barb broke off in the plastic dummy target.” (p. 36)
    4. “In this case, the barbs could not be removed by attendant EMS staff and the subject had to be transported to the local hospital for removal by a physician.  Due to an ethical concern about doing harm to the additional volunteer subjects involved in this testing, subsequent testing with all other subjects involved the use of alligator clips.”  (p. 22)
    5. “The Stinger probes frequently broke off in the target during testing and their removal. During this testing, 52 Probes out of 159 Stinger cartridges broke off in the testing target (32.8%).” (p. 66) 

“We are pleased to have a new independent government-funded study which documents TASER technology as being superior in ECD performance,” commented Tom Smith, Chairman and Founder of TASER International.  “These results are also being confirmed in law-enforcement agencies around the country, such as the Pennsylvania State Troopers and the California Highway Patrol, that have done comparisons and selected the field-proven TASER technology,” concluded Smith.
A full copy of the study can be found at www.taser.com/research/government_studies/NIJ Report.pdf

About TASER International, Inc.
TASER International's products protect life.  TASER provides advanced Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) for use in the law enforcement, medical, military, corrections, professional security, and personal protection markets.  TASER devices use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force.  For more information, please call TASER International at (800) 978-2737 or visit our website at www.TASER.com.

Request more product info from Axon.

Thank You!

Thank You!

By submitting your information, you agree to be contacted by the selected vendor(s).

Join the discussion

Copyright © 2018 PoliceOne.com. All rights reserved.