Tasers – also known as electronic control devices, or ECDs – are coming of age more than three decades after they were first introduced.

The word “tase” has even made it into the American lexicon (as in “Don’t tase me, bro!”, declared the most memorable quote of 2007 by The Yale Book of Quotations), and sales of purse-size personal Tasers are on the rise (see story below).

In 2006, the last year for which statistics are available, 98 police departments in the state (20 in Fairfield County) were either using or evaluating Tasers. That puts the weapon firmly in the plus column as a safer use-of-force option, according to several departments who spoke with the Justice Journal.

“I teach tactics from hands to guns, and I think the department is best served when Tasers are part of a package,” says Sergeant Michael Georgoulis, Taser program coordinator at the Danbury Police Department and master instructor for TASER International. “It’s a tool in the tool box, not this evil thing.”

The trademarked name is an acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle,” named in 1974 by its inventor, NASA scientist Jack Cover, after the hero of a 20th century science fiction adventure series. His original model resembled a large flashlight and used a gunpowder blast to launch two wires at its target, making it technically a firearm.

 In its current incarnation, gunpowder’s out and compressed nitrogen cartridges are in. They’re used to shoot two fishhook-like probes up to 35 feet at a speed of over 160 feet per second. The probes are attached to the Taser by insulated wire, through which an electrical signal is transmitted. The “power plant” is two 3-volt lithium camera batteries.

The controlled cycle of electricity, which usually lasts five seconds, stimulates muscles without affecting the heart or other vital organs, according to the company. This state-of-the-art technology, called Neuromuscular Incapacitation, temporarily overrides the nervous system of the suspect regardless of mental focus, training, or size.

TASER International, which dominates 95 percent of sales and markets five professional models in its Citizen Defense System, claims over 12,000 law enforcement, correctional, and military agencies in 44 countries are onboard, with more than 301,000 Tasers sold to law enforcement since February 1998. The company’s revenue has grown from approximately $2.5 million for fiscal year 1999 to an estimated $67 million in 2004; third quarter 2007 revenues alone were $28.5 million, a 56 percent increase over the same quarter of the previous year.

The effectiveness of Tasers was the subject of a June 2007 Police Quarterly article entitled “The Taser as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency.” The article focused on the use and effectiveness of the weapon by examining all Taser deployments by police officers in an unidentified large metropolitan department from 2002 through 2004.

“Findings indicate that the Taser was used almost exclusively against violent suspects classified as ‘emotionally disturbed’ by emergency service officers with supervisors present,” it reported. “Despite use on a population perceived as being higher risk for injury, findings indicate that the Taser was effective, as 85 percent of suspects were incapacitated and taken into custody without further incident.”

Law enforcement officers agree that Tasers offer a safer use-of-force option than batons or other impact weapons.

“Our continuum of force includes verbal commands, pepper spray, Taser, up to and including use of deadly force,” says Captain Michael Lombardo of his department’s policy in Wilton. “If we have a situation where we can use something in the force continuum before deadly force, it’s an asset to us and the community.”

He adds that the Taser can be an excellent tool in a standoff situation, and offers a recent incident as an illustration.

“The officer was out of his car, talking to this person at somewhat of a distance because the fellow was threatening himself with an instrument if the officer got any closer,” he explains. “The supervisor showed up on the scene, removed the Taser from its holster and pointed it at him, gave verbal commands, and the fellow complied. They didn’t have to get into any type of physical confrontation. He actually told the officers he didn’t want to get tased.” Lombardo notes that his department has not actually deployed a Taser since purchasing its first in mid-2006. It recently added three more; all four were funded through the department’s asset forfeiture funds.

When departments in Connecticut add the weapon to their arsenal, they generally look to three professional organizations for guidance in writing policy for its use: the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The Danbury Police Department, which has had Tasers since 2003 and now counts 57 in its arsenal, abides by the recommendations of the latter.

“Our data collection is enormous,” says Georgoulis, who served on the CPCA committee that drew up minimum standards for Taser use. He says officers are required to fill out an incident report, a Response to Resistance report, plus another form to meet PERF data collection requirements after each Taser use. The reports are then reviewed by at least four different officers.

While Danbury and Wilton report no problems with public acceptance of their Tasers, some municipalities have encountered opposition. In neighboring Ridgefield, public controversy erupted late last fall over five video-equipped Tasers purchased with a $9,000 donation from a private citizen. The anonymous donor acted after the town’s Board of Selectmen rejected the police department’s funding request for four years running.

Numerous citizens raised questions over the gift itself and the timing of its announcement (shortly after Election Day), weighing in on whether the commission had made an “end run” around the selectmen and whether Ridgefield is “the kind of community that warrants Tasers.” “There are two areas where I think there’s been misunderstanding, miscommunication, and a dearth of facts: the propriety of the process that we underwent in terms of acquiring Tasers and the propriety of the tool itself,” says Police Commission Chairperson Susan Craig, who maintains that the commission acted within its mandate when it accepted the gift. “From our perspective, the commission has heard the need of the police department for less-than-lethal tools.”

The five Tasers are being evaluated in Ridgefield over a six-month period. One has been issued to each shift supervisor, one stays at police headquarters, and one is earmarked as a back-up. “At the end of the pilot program, when everyone is trained and up and running, we’ll revisit the issue,” promises Craig. “Maybe we’ll say we don’t need them, or that we want more, or that we’re happy with what we have, or let’s evaluate for another six months.”

Danbury’s Georgoulis admits that there’s no magic wand when it comes to law enforcement, but he adds that Tasers come pretty close.

“I’ve been a cop for almost 20 years, and in any physical confrontation I’ve ever been in or at, there are things that work in Case A that may not work or may be inappropriate in Case B,” he says. “When you limit your tools, you limit your options. And that’s never a good idea because each event is a set of circumstances unto itself. I can point to specific examples in Danbury where the Taser was used against someone who was intent on hurting themselves when there was literally no other option. When someone who wants to kill himself is waving a sword around, and is trying to incite you to kill him, what is your option – grant his wish?”