The co-founder of Taser International travels frequently to defend a device that was invented to avoid injury and save lives.
By Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler, Times Staff Writer
Published September 1, 2005
[Times photo: Joseph Garnett Jr.]
Thomas P. Smith, president of Taser International, was in the bay area this week trying to smooth out some of the recent controversy over his company's product, which he calls "the wired version of the Star Trek phaser."
Taser International has sold its namesake gun lookalike to 100,000 civilians since 1994, and in recent years 8,000 law enforcement agencies in 45 countries have bought 150,000 of the weapons.
But the Arizona-based company is under scrutiny. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference wants a moratorium on the weapon's use and sale. Others question the safety of the devices, which shoots probes that can temporarily incapacitate subjects with 50,000 volts of electricity.
Taser's stock prices and sales have suffered amid reports of people dying after Taser hits. Most deaths were later ascribed to drug overdoses, heart conditions or excited delirium - a psychotic, often drug-induced state that affects the heart.
But last month, a Chicago medical examiner attributed a criminal suspect's death to a Taser. And law enforcement officers have sued the company, saying they were injured during Taser training.
This week, Taser co-founder and president Tom Smith visited Tampa Bay, where most law enforcement officers use Tasers. Smith, 37, spoke with Times reporter Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler about his controversial product.
What brings you to Florida?
We're just trying to crack a lot of the misinformation that's out there about Tasers. The reason it's been adopted so quickly is because of the fact that it reduces injury and saves lives. That's making our community safer and the law enforcement officers' job easier, and it's revolutionized law enforcement forever. Anything that's revolutionary in nature usually comes with some controversy.
Tell me about the beginning and starting out. I have read reports that there were some very lean times.
My brother and I founded Taser International in 1993. ... We were both pre-med students (at Harvard), decided we didn't want to go to med school forever and that we didn't know what we wanted to do.
We both were kind of tech people, and the Star Trek phasers were pretty appealing. I think this is the wired version of the Star Trek phaser.
Wasn't there a tragedy that also pushed you and your brother into the Taser company?
Two friends that played high school football with my brother were shot and killed in a road rage incident in Scottsdale (Arizona). These were high school guys, they cut a car off in traffic, followed him into a resort. This guy got out of his car, pulled a gun out of the glove box - a .45-caliber - shot and killed them point-blank.
What did that do to you?
This guy (the shooter) wasn't a hardened criminal. This was an attorney who was having a bad day. And so we'd always kind of said, you know, what if a Taser had been there instead of a firearm? Wouldn't that have been a better outcome?
We decided we wanted to take a scientific approach to be able to end those confrontations without having to make a life and death decision.
Initially you marketed this to civilians? How did that go?
Not very well. We weren't selling to the law enforcement market. So if I'm selling to you, a civilian, you turn around and say, "Well if this is so great, why aren't the police using it?" We didn't have the credibility established.
And you mentioned those early years. From '93 until we went public in 2001, we didn't really have any payroll covered for the next month.
But you know, my brother and I started in the living room and it's kind of grown from there. And we've had our ups and downs over the years.
More recently, we've had pretty consistent growth. But this year, we got cut in half from the controversy. With all the raging controversy, we went from $19-million (in sales) in the fourth quarter to $10-million in the first quarter.
Did you ever think there would be this much controversy?
I thought people were going to love us. Honest to God, I thought we'd be standing there with Amnesty International, the ACLU, saying what an incredible advancement this has been for human rights.
Unfortunately, I think some of the activist groups never learn subtraction, because we get cleared in a death, but you'll never see the number (of deaths associated with Tasers) go down.
You're referring to Amnesty International and their statements that there have been 100-plus deaths of people hit with Tasers?
It's kind of become this death count. In-custody deaths have been around for years. It's my belief that the quicker the police can use it and end that fight and get those people (experiencing excited delirium) help, the more we're going to save. But we can't save all of them.
Talk about the training bulletin you recently issued. It talked about excited delirium and the possibility of fatalities. Why did you feel the need to put it out there?
If you go back and look at our first manual we made in 1994, one of the warnings was "Danger: Any use of a force in confrontation can have a fatal outcome." We updated our warnings and we put them out there and we also said, "By the way, don't forget we want you to use the minimum amount of applications of the Taser as possible to take these people into custody."
It causes physical exertion, so the longer you go, it's going to wear this person out. We want to minimize that.
So you don't see this as a contradiction to earlier statements from your company about Tasers' safety?
Not at all, no way. This was a bulletin that updated our warnings.
We've gotten a ton of lawsuits this year against us, and we felt - and our attorney advised us - it was time to go out and say "Hey guys, here's the warnings again."
Do you think that there will be some officers who abuse this?
Absolutely, and that's why we have the built-in accountability. Every time you pull the trigger, it records the date and time, so command staff has oversight to ensure that we minimize the number of times it's abused.
Do you think there should be a federal or state regulation of Taser use, or do you think it's enough to let each agency do it?
Ideally, you'd like to think each agency is going to do it. But I think if the states do it, uh, I think it should stay at the state level, because the state of Florida is going to be different than the state of Wisconsin.
What do you think of the cases where children were hit with Tasers?
I have a 6-year-old and I have a 4-year-old at home, and when you see the headline that they Tasered a 6-year-old, you know, I think it's an insult to the world when Amnesty makes statements like this is going to be the next disciplinary tool of the world. This is not a disciplinary item. It is a device used in confrontations, and I think you have to look at the whole scenario.
Once force is decided to be used, you have to say, okay, what's the best option? ... If not the Taser, then what?
Does your wife carry a Taser?
Yes, she's got several of them.
Why several?
One at home, one in the car ...
And you've been hit with one? For the full 5 seconds?
Oh, yes. (Smiles.)
How does it feel?
Hit your funny bone through your whole body, and it's about 20 times more intense.
How has your life changed since Taser? There have been reports of millions in stock options for you and your family.
It's living on the road. (Laughs.) I never would have thought we would be having this kind of national debate. I'm missing a lot of my kids' growing up because I spend five days a week traveling around the country having to educate people on what this device is.
For me, it's a passion because we are saving lives, we are making a difference. That's what makes me sleep well at night and continue going out there.
What's next?
We've been challenged by the military to take this out 100 yards, and we will get there. We're working on those Star Trek phasers.
So that would be a long-distance Taser?
Correct.
What, in your mind, will be the point at which you can say, "Okay, we're a success"?
It's already a success from the perspective that we have revolutionized law enforcement. Where it will be a complete success is when we can actually minimize the controversy, with people understanding force is going to sometimes have to be used.
We'll never get there, but I'd like to get to a point where we go a very long time without an in-custody death occurring. But unfortunately with these drugs - methamphetamine and everything else - it's going to make that impossible.
Our goal is, anything you can do today lethally, we want to be able to do nonlethally. Destroying a target for the military, say, is very easy to do. But to be able to capture that target to get information, that's the challenge.
How would that be addressed through Taser?
Nonlethal land mines. That's the project we're working on right now. That's going to be the next generation.
