Don’t Tase Me, Bro!

The latest take-down weapon in a sea of bad behavior: the TASER.

I’m setting aside forensic science today because ever since I saw the University of Florida campus police struggle with Andrew Meyer, I’ve wanted to know about Tasers. Meyer was actually made famous by a YouTube video when his belligerent behavior directed at Senator John Kerry—who had come to speak at the school—got him Tased. And, of course, tased became a verb and money was made on t-shirts and baby bibs with the sad refrain, “Don’t Tase me, bro!”

If you watch the video and listen to the screams, you will be affected. But, how? Do you think, like the ACLU and Amnesty International, that you should side with Meyer, or do you think that police are justified in Taser use?

Now I don’t have 3 or 4-thousand words to debate the subject here, but I will tell you very briefly some of what I found out. Also, there will be a series of links at the end of this article so you can go check it out for yourself; I’ve just saved you some homework.

Factoids

• TASER stands for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle, from the Tom Swift series of children's novels written (circa 20th c.); I guess Tom Swift had an electric rifle.
• Tasers, a brand name, are made by an Arizona-based company and they are referred to in the industry as a CED—conductive energy device.
• The latest figure I could find suggests that 11,000 law enforcement, correctional and military organizations, in 44 countries, use its devices

The best reason for using this weapon, and police have been looking for one for centuries, is that criminals return fire. The second best reason is a more modern concept and is that, violent criminals are often hopped up on drugs or stimulants. The usual methodology was to beat, spray, or twist the perpetrator into submission using pepper spray, clubbing, or joint distortion. But since many illegal drugs are painkillers, those former engines of despair don’t always work.

How does a Taser work?

I’m going to quote an article written by Mark W. Kroll, a biomedical engineer because he’s the expert and why rephrase it? http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/5731


“When you pull the trigger of a Taser gun, a blast of compressed nitrogen launches its two barbed darts at 55 meters per second, less than a fifth the speed of a bullet from a typical pistol. Each projectile, which weighs 1.6 grams, has a 9-millimeter-long tip to penetrate clothing and the insulating outer layer of skin. Two whisper-thin wires trail behind for up to 9 meters, forming an electrical connection to the gun.”

The result is an instant loss of the attackers neuromuscular control and any ability to perform coordinated action or remove the probes. In other words, mine, “It shocks the bejeezus out of him,” Now if you want the full spectrum of biomedical details, I highly recommend the aforementioned link.

Police restraint
I found a statistic that claims about 670 people die each year under incidents of arrest and restraint. Police are obviously convinced that Tasers will make the target feel dazed but will not affect death. (Remember this is to prevent shooting the suspect.) So, I asked my friend, John Brooks, a crime scene investigator with the Fayetteville Police Department, if he had experience with the Taser. John responded that he’d never used one on anybody but he had been tased before and it was indescribable pain but he also said, “when it’s over, it’s over.”

That’s good enough for me.

*Note: I just heard from Mark W. Kroll, PhD; see the specifics—

Here is the link for the 700 arrest-related deaths per year.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ardus05.pdf

Thanks
Mark

Mark W. Kroll, PhD, FACC, FHRS
Mark Kroll & Associates, LLC
Box 23, Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Adj. Full Prof. Biomedical Engineering
California Polytechnic University
Adj. Full Prof. Biomedical Engineering
University of Minnesota
* * *

Thank you to Sandra Upson with IEEE Spectrum Magazine.
YouTube.com
http://www.ci.fargo.nd.us/CityInfo/Departments/Police/OntheBeat/Tasers/
taser.com
selfdefenseweapons.com
www.taserconnection.com
www.spectrum.ieee.org
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-08-little-taser_x.htm (selling smaller versions for wider use—metallic pink, electric blue, and titanium silver)
www.taserfoundation.org

A Sneak Peak at Spring Training

One of the benefits of belonging to a professional science organization is the ability to attend conferences. I can’t always make the national conventions but there is one I go to every year without fail. Our regional division of the International Association for Identification puts on a spring training presentation and workshop for its Arkansas forensic science and law enforcement members.

I thought you might like an honorary pass for a sneak peak into what we do at a smaller division conference. First of all, why is it important to have these meetings and better still, to attend regularly? I think it’s insightful to establish relationships and camaraderie with other criminal justice co-workers, even if they are not in the same department. For example, law enforcement officers often bring evidence to the crime lab, but it’s also essential that they learn how to process and package the artifacts, as well as to understand what is done with the evidence and how best to prepare it.

Another good reason to meet with colleagues in a professional setting is that so much forensic science crime scene information is presented on TV today, wrapped up in crime drama, that criminal are also watching these programs and are students soaking up tips on how to improve their trade. Police often tell me they see evidence of clean up at crime scenes and there are other instances of further education. It just makes sense that workers in the criminal justice system need to stay current with technology and techniques to continually improve skills and equipment. Classes on new tools and methods are a large part of our training programs and become our hedge against the free criminal information that is disbursed.

I won’t be able to tell you about all the sessions that were available, but a few of the topics discussed at our training conference in Little Rock were: the basics of fingerprint analysis and learning how to do it hands-on—with a magnifying glass, ten print cards and samples for a quiz (I got an “A”)! behavioral profiling of serial rapists, on scene interpretation of physical evidence, about testifying in court, a double homicide case and many other topics.

One session I’d like to tell you about was both informative and fun. We often have vendors, independent businesses that bring new tools or machines in for demonstration just as a sales representative would exhibit their new line at a conference. This particular product was brought in from Arrowhead Forensics and it’s called a Coherent TracER™.

You know how on television the CSIs are always use alternative light to look for traces of blood, semen or body fluids? Well, this Tracer is a battery-powered, and portable forensic laser system specifically designed for the rigors of modern criminology and forensics. A system. It can be used to locate fingerprints, fibers, body fluids, bone fragments, tooth chips, narcotics’ residue, and a variety of other types of trace evidence, even in high ambient light.

We got the opportunity to examine artifacts in a dimly lit hotel room and it works beautifully, the most effective of all the lights currently used. And just to show that we are not without a sense of humor. We examined the bedding, the walls and the bathroom under this light. I’m here to tell you that in the future when you travel, take your own pillow, sheets, and wipes to clean the bathroom.

Thanks for the read.

Staying Ahead of the Criminals

If you type “Experts Blame Cop Shows for Educating Criminals” into your favorite search engine, you’ll come up with the original article, and a lot of blog commentary. It’s a popular subject. Just to paraphrase, the article is about a killer who used bleach to clean up a crime scene. And the senior criminalist from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said that bleach use was becoming all too common in his opinion. Another statement was from a northeast Ohio prosecutor, who claimed that a man went to great lengths in a double homicide to clean up his crime by using bleach to wash up, lining the interior of his car with blankets, and burning DNA evidence. He tripped up though when it came time to dispose of a crowbar, tossing it onto to a frozen lake.

I located another story about gang members in South Africa, who used their camera phones for finding victims. Apparently they would take pictures of bank customers who had withdrawn large sums of money. A gang member outside would stake the person and eventually rob them. Police officials there, want to ban cell phones in banks.

Since I write about crime and forensic science, I have wondered about this question myself? Am I, too, providing information to help criminals?

I don’t know that there is a definitive answer. I mean, if we’re talking about drug-related crimes committed by stoners, probably not. But I’ve often heard it said that most information about how to “best the government” goes on in our very own jails and prisons. I’m told that inmates share information and even teach techniques and ideas to anyone who will listen. So how does this play out in real life? I can’t say and I don’t know of any reliable studies that could even be performed because it is the very definition of underground information.

Thankfully, a lot of the gizmos and crime scene techniques that are shown on television come from the fruitful imagination of the writers. Most of my friends and colleagues in law enforcement and forensic science claim they don’t watch the CSI-type shows because they cannot suspend their disbelief enough to enjoy them. And, to them, crime is not entertainment but tragedies they must deal with every day.

I think the solution to staying on the cutting edge is on-going all the time in the form of research and technology. There are rewards and benefits for companies that launch crime-prevention and crime-busting aids. Just recently USA TODAY ran a piece about a new device that the Homeland Security Department would like to issue to its federal agents.


It looks like a flashlight and emits a powerful beam of light that temporarily blinds anyone who looks into it. A hefty $1 million dollars of testing money is going into the LED (light-emiting diode) Incapacitator. And they have volunteers lined up at Pennsylvania State University’s Institute of Non-Lethal Defense Technologies. (“So, what did you do today, honey?” “Well, I had my eyes burned up, my brains scrambled and got sickened by light pulses and colors!”)


The main thing that law enforcement looks for in a device, believe it or not, are tools that give authorities enough time to tackle subjects and restrain them, while sparing the lives of innocents nearby. They need tools to disorient and stop perpetrators, while preserving life. No small task.

I, personally, love reading about the new devices and think this one is especially interesting. The problem will become however, how to keep them out of the hands of the black market. Once they are mass-produced and come down in costs, then you’re on the road again, looking for more tricks.

Name That Crime Scene Problem

Sorry I haven't been around weekly. It goes like this: writers have a lot of conferences in the spring. I went to a mystery writers conference (with a crime scene walk-thru that was great); I was at a forensic science training conference; then the Romantic Times Book Lovers Convention in Houston (that was wild!); and, finally, a novel writing boot camp experience outside of Indianapolis (a wicked ten-hour drive).

Well, after all that, summer showed up. And summer is the time that authors create books. I'm making an E-book and CD of Detective Notebook: Crime Scene Science (for kids aged 10 and up, very cool, with activities); working on a monkey novella with terrific real-life graphics, and I need to get back to that mystery (it's been back-burnered too long).

Anyway, as a way of apology, I am going to post a drawing I did.

What Happened?

The coroner is having a hard time establishing the time of death. Look at the crime scene and figure out why. Leave your answer in the comments box.

I Humbly Disagree with One of My Favorite Authors

Just recently this commentary was posted in an online e-newsletter I receive every day, Levine Breaking News. Here is the copy:

*LBN-COMMENTARY By Scott Turow: This Friday a 33-year-old man named Juan Luna will go on trial for the murder of seven people in a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine, Ill., on Jan. 8, 1993. The investigation of the murders, in which the victims' bloody corpses were discovered in the restaurant freezer, languished for more than a decade until Mr. Luna's DNA was identified in the saliva found on a chicken bone at the crime scene. Having spent some time over the years as a criminal defense lawyer, I find this use of DNA evidence somewhat ironic, even a bit perverse. When I was first exposed to the forensic use of DNA, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was seen largely as a tool of the defense, usually resisted by prosecutors who feared manipulation of the underlying science. Ultimately, hundreds of people around the country were able to demonstrate they had been wrongly convicted, and those successes led prosecutors to realize that the same DNA tests -- and experts -- could also provide evidence that guilty people had been walking around free for years. The Brown's Chicken case is but one of hundreds of "cold cases" now being resolved by advances in forensic technology, particularly DNA testing. Greater accuracy in the truth-finding process is a laudable development. But I worry that the growing capacity of today's forensics to reach farther and farther into the past seems likely to undermine the law's time-ingrained notions, embodied in statutes of limitations, about how long people should be liable to criminal prosecution.

As much as I love Scott Turow and respect his work and his writings, I must humbly disagree with his premise. The statute of limitations never runs out on murder. And for good reason: a life has been taken and this egregious act means that a father will no longer be there for his family; that a daughter will never grow up to have her own family; and, that a victim’s family must live with the absence of a loved one every day of their lives.

I understand going back into history and plucking criminals out of their new lives must be a shock, and upsetting to his new family. Oh, well. He should have thought about this before he decided to divorce himself from personal responsibility and moral conduct.

Your view?

p.s. Please visit my new blog along with some other great true-crime authors and commentators, it's sure to be a hit: http://www.incoldblogger.blogspot.com

The 7 Key Differences Between TV Crime Drama and Real Life

TV: 1. “Hot” Crime Scene Technicians:




Reality: 1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

TV: 2. False Promises


Reality: 2. Honest Assessment with no personal investment



TV: 3. Jumping Jobs

Reality: 3. Lab Assembly Line

TV: 4. Results in One day

Reality: 4. Crime Lab Backlogs



TV: 5. Obscure Techniques (Grissom tastes a bone)

Reality: 5. The Principles of Science



TV: 6. Settings: Glossy, clean and no clutter




Reality: 6. Trailers, cluttered, worn and lived in

TV: 7. Socioeconomics: Id by Dentistry?

Reality: 7. Victims victimizing Victims: no resources, no safety net, no one cares
(May never have seen a dentist)

Crime Show Effects on Real Trials

This came in just recently from a Maricopa County source, Attorney Andrew Thomas.

Of 300 prosecutors in Phoenix's Maricopa County attorney's office:

• 61 percent say jurors seem to believe forensic crime shows on TV are true.
• 90 percent have to explain to juries why police don't collect the kind of evidence seen on television.

Of the 102 most experienced prosecutors:

• 38 percent had at least one trial that ended in an acquittal or a hung jury when forensic evidence was not available to corroborate testimony.
• 52 percent have seen a defendant receive a more favorable plea offer because there were expected problems with the 'CSI effct' had the case gone to trial.
• 80 percent reported juror disapproval with the lack of forensic evidence.

Source: Maricopa County Attorney Andrea Thomas